Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALLIED IRISH BANKS BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

HARRIS TWEED BILL [Lords]

Amendment agreed to; Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

GREATER NOTTINGHAM LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT BILL

Considered; read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Labour Statistics

1. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been unemployed for 12 months or longer in Yorkshire and Humberside.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): 91,235.

Mr. Gunnell: The Minister is well aware that that figure, which I believe is the April 1993 figure, represents a considerable increase over the two years to that date. The long-term unemployed have increased from 26 to 36 per cent. of the total. He is also aware that the Government's plans for very little coal mean that the numbers are likely to increase. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] What specific measures is the Minister proposing to deal with the long-term unemployed in Yorkshire and Humberside?

Mr. Forsyth: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that unemployment fell in his constituency last month by some 4 per cent., or 141 people. However, he is right to draw attention to the fact that, because we have had a long and difficult recession, our concern should be focused on the long-term unemployed, which is why the Government have announced this year an extra 600,000 differing opportunities to help those people who find themselves out of work—the long-term unemployed—back into employment as recovery continues.

Sir Donald Thompson: To be unemployed for a year is a terrible thing. Will my hon. Friend ensure that he liaises carefully with the Department of Trade and Industry so that the regional aid package is not so distorted that even more people are left unemployed in Yorkshire and

Humberside? I am fully aware that the numbers of unemployed have been decreasing in the past few months, and we all hope that that continues.

Mr. Forsyth: I assure my hon. Friend that we do liaise closely with the Department of Trade and Industry. I know the interest that my hon. Friend has taken in securing jobs for his constituency and for Yorkshire and Humberside as a whole, and I know that he will welcome developments such as the 700 jobs that have been created at Kimberly Clark and the 500 jobs at First Direct in Leeds. Those are a result of the success of the Government's policies, to which my hon. Friend has contributed such a great deal.

Defence-related Industries

Mr. Nigel Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to assist defence-related industries to retrain staff in non-defence-related fields.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): Through the training and enterprise councils and the Employment Service, a broad range of programmes are available to help people affected by changes in defence-related industries.

Mr. Jones: What help are the Government giving to those companies attempting to diversify into non defence-related markets? For instance, T. I. Dowty in my constituency is currently negotiating a merger with Messier-Bugatti of France. Will the Secretary of State press the Government to reflect the special needs of areas most affected by defence rundown in next year's local government grant settlement?

Mr. Hunt: I understand that Gloucestershire training and enterprise council is involved in Dowty and has set up a job shop to advise people who are affected in any way. There is also a wide range of training opportunities.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, let us recall that at the last election, the Liberal Democrat party proposed that there should be a 50 per cent. reduction in expenditure on defence by the turn of the century. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman explained what the consequence of that would be in job losses to his constituents.
As regards the future, we are always looking at ways in which we can increase the competitiveness of the economy. Output in the aerospace industry has increased by more than 35 per cent. in the past 10 years, which is good news.

Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Marconi companies in Chelmsford have paid a heavy price as a result of the peace dividend and the world recession in defence contracts? Will he join me in congratulating those companies and English Electric Valve on the efforts that they are making to diversify into non-military contract winning, to help to sustain the employment market and we hope, at a future date, to bring new people into work? Will he also ensure that the Essex training and enterprise council does all it can to help retrain those defence workers who have been made redundant, who desperately need work and must be given work as soon as possible?

Mr. Hunt: First, I have already met the chairman of Essex TEC, Mr. Lawrence. I was able to have some words with him, and I look forward to further discussions. My


hon. Friend is right to say that it is vital for the training and enterprise council to be involved in the way he describes. As for the second part of his question, I am happy to announce that the United Kingdom will participate fully in the Konver programme to assist regions affected by the decline in the defence industry. That will involve a total amount of about £15 million, through the European social and regional development funds.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, during the past three years, no fewer than 82,000 jobs have been lost in defence-related industries? Will he confirm that, during those three years, Tory Ministers have successively denounced Labour's proposals to shift people from defence to civilian work as ill-thought-out nonsense? Will he also confirm that if the Government had taken the Labour party's advice, many of the 82,000 people who have lost their jobs would not be on the dole but would be doing other useful work instead?

Mr. Hunt: First, I am happy to be in my new post, and look forward to many exchanges with the hon. Gentleman across these Dispatch Boxes. Secondly—sad to relate—he has again come to the Dispatch Box with some ill-thought-out nonsense. There is a wide range of training and retraining opportunities for people who have worked in the defence-related industries, and we will continue to ensure that resources are directed down that avenue.
Thirdly, I wish that the hon. Gentleman had welcomed my announcement about our acceptance of the new European programme. Finally, he criticises the Government, but what would have happened under Labour, with its 27 per cent. reduction in defence expenditure? What would that have meant in job losses throughout the United Kingdom?

Working Week Directive

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment has been made of the effect on British productivity of the 48-hour working week directive.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The working time directive will be damaging; not as damaging as in its worst form, but sufficiently damaging and unjustified for us to seek to challenge it in the European Court.

Mrs. Lait: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate Ministers on their success in the negotiations. Does my hon. Friend agree that the British Government have guaranteed that there will be no compulsory time limit for working hours, and that that has been welcomed by employers throughout the European Community? [ Laughter.]

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. If Opposition Members, who are chuckling, had had their way, while Taiwan and Japan were loading up ships with consumer goods, in Britain we would have been switching off the lights.

Mr. Stevenson: Coming back to switching off the lights, does the Minister accept that an industry in the United Kingdom that has had a productivity record second to none—the coal industry—has had that record thrown in

its face by the closure of half the industry? Is not the threat to productivity in the country not the 48-hour week directive but Government policy?

Mr. Forsyth: Manufacturing productivity in Britain has led the way in Europe. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the coal industry and other industries have to be competitive. Labour costs in Europe grew at a rate of 4 per cent. a year throughout the 1980s. That compares with a growth in Japan of zero per cent. throughout the 1980s. Competitiveness is the name of the game, and I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have not always supported the policy changes needed in the coal industry to achieve competitiveness.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that recent figures from the German motor industry association show that manufacturing costs for cars in Britain are some two thirds of those in Germany? That is why many German companies are now sourcing from Great Britain for their components. Does he agree that to adopt any directives, particularly the social chapter, would undermine Britain's competitive position, as it is presently undermining the position of many countries in Europe?

Mr. Forsyth: I could not agree more. The flexible labour policies that we pioneered in the 1980s helped to make our car industry such a success. We are exporting British cars to Japan. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about Japan. When the departing chairman of Mercedes Benz warns that the products will no longer say "Made in West Germany", or "Made in Germany", but "Made by Daimler-Benz" because the costs of manufacturing have risen so high in Germany, alarm bells should be ringing throughout Europe among those socialists who still wish to go ahead with the social chapter, which is making industry uncompetitive.

Ms Quin: Given what the Minister said about competitiveness, how can he explain the fact that, in the 1993 world competitiveness report, the United Kingdom had slipped from 13th place to 19th place? That would seem to be the opposite of what the Minister is saying. Is it not grotesque that, when we have officially 3 million unemployed in Britain today, all the Government can do is go to Europe and suggest that those in work should work even longer hours?

Mr. Forsyth: It is extraordinary to be lectured by the hon. Lady about improving Britain's competitiveness, when on every occasion she has supported those who have argued for measures that would add to our labour costs and reduce our competitiveness.

Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that unemployment is the major economic issue facing the European Community, and that we should be giving business men greater flexibility to export and to create more jobs and not to destroy jobs?

Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why it is so important that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was able to persuade our colleagues in Europe in Copenhagen of the importance of putting the emphasis on competitiveness. Europe is not an island; unless it embraces the arguments that we won in three successive general elections in Britain, jobs will he lost and the numbers of unemployed will increase. That is the lesson of the past few years. Our arguments are now being


taken on board by our partners in Europe. Only the Labour party 3 s still stuck in the time-warp of the early 1980s.

Invalidity Benefit

Mr. Mulllin: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people claiming unemployment benefit in the past five years have switched to receipt of invalidity benefit.

Mr. David Hunt: Relatively few.

Mr. Mullin: Has not leaning on people to take sickness or invalidity benefit been one of a number of devices by which the Government have managed to massage downward the unemployment figures? Is there any truth in the suggestion that staff in jobcentres receive some incentive or bonus for reducing the figures? Can the Secretary of State tell us about that please?

Mr. Hunt: I do not know why Labour keeps trying to peddle such untrue accusations, particularly when they have been categorically denied in press releases issued by the key individuals involved—Mr. Fogden of the Employment Service and Mr. Stibbard, chief statistician at the Department of Employment. Mr. Fogden said:
There is absolutely no truth in the accusation that computer failures or pressure to move people on to sickness benefit are responsible for the fall in unemployment.
It would be a good idea if the hon. Gentleman turned from the nonsense over statistics to examine the fact that unemployment has fallen four months in succession, and unfilled vacancies are at a two-year high. The trouble is that what is good news for Britain is bad news for the Labour party.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not so much a question of the benefits that people receive as of the help that they need to get back to work? Do not the Government have a good record of helping people with disabilities to get back into jobs?

Mr. Hunt: I could not agree more, because that is a key area. I just wish that, instead of messing around with statistics and accusing the Government of allegedly fiddling them, Labour Members concentrated on the fact that it is not an argument about statistics. Every one of the statistics is a case of human difficulty faced by the individual and his or her family. The sooner that the Opposition focus on that the better. The only fiddling with the figures is coming from the Opposition. They are fiddling with figures while the economy turns. It is about time that they started to recognise the truth of the present situation.

School Leavers

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the co-ordination of training and enterprise councils and further education colleges on the training of school leavers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The precise arrangements for co-ordination are decided locally. However, TECs and further education colleges operate within a framework of contractual relationships in respect

of the training of school leavers. This is reinforced by partnership arrangements among the colleges, local schools, the careers service and TECs.

Mr. O'Brien: Is it not time that the Government took some initiative? School leavers denied discretionary grants because of restrictions on local government expenditure find that they have to report to TECs for training and are then sent on the same courses. Is it not time that the Government stopped that administrative nightmare and allowed school leavers to continue training under local government auspices, supported by TECs? When will the Minister do something about tidying up that area?

Miss Widdecombe: The facts speak for themselves. The current system works extremely well—particularly at the hon. Gentleman's own TEC in Wakefield. In the latest month, only four young people in the 16-to-18-year-old category are still waiting for an offer after eight weeks. Therefore, it appears that the training arrangements are working extremely well.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend use to the full the powers that the Government have in relation to training and enterprise council corporate plans, to ensure that they do not relegate to a low priority the training of disabled school leavers, whose potential ought to be valued for humanitarian and economic reasons?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable number of Government initiatives to promote training and employment opportunities for the disabled in general and for young people. The most recent notable initiative was access to work. I share my hon. Friend's concern.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: If the training schemes are working comparatively well, as the Minister claims, why is it that only one third of youth trainees obtain a vocational qualification, between 30 and 40 per cent. of young people fail to complete further education courses, and 16 to 19-year-olds in Britain do worse than most comparable advanced industrial countries? The Government, who have been in power for 14 years, have failed our young people. Is it not time that they stopped using youth unemployment as a political football, and did something practical for the generation that they are losing?

Miss Widdecombe: I find that a trifle rich, coming from a party which has consistently opposed all the training initiatives that this Government have implemented. The majority of youth trainees get into a job, transfer to another course or have another positive outcome. That is a reasonable measure. What chance would they have under Opposition policies, which basically give no guarantee and the dole?

Training Programmes (Isle of Wight)

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met representatives from the Isle of Wight training and enterprise council to discuss delivery of training programmes.

Mr. David Hunt: I met the acting chairman of the Isle of Wight training and enterprise council two weeks ago, with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is one of the smallest training and enterprise councils in the country, the Isle of Wight TEC holds its own among the giants in the country? Does he understand that, as the Isle of Wight does not have assisted area status, unlike most of Scotland and Wales, the island has to depend heavily on its TEC—rather more so than similar areas?

Mr. Hunt: I recognise that my hon. Friend has argued vigorously for assisted area status for the Isle of Wight, but he will recognise that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and the proposals made by him are now with the European Commission.
The Isle of Wight TEC does an excellent job and provides a good example of what can be achieved when the local Member works closely with the local TEC. Some Opposition Members could learn from that. I was interested to hear some of the imaginative and innovative ideas that were suggested and which I hope will be followed up.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment in the west midlands.

Miss Widdecombe: In May 1993, on the seasonally adjusted basis, there were 282,300 unemployed claimants in the west midlands region.

Mr. Burden: Does the Minister accept that those figures are disgraceful, and that they show that the west midlands has a worse unemployment record than the national average on most indicators, including youth, female and long-term unemployment? Is she aware that 50 per cent. of those unemployed in the Bartley Green ward in my constituency have been out of work for more than a year? Is she further aware that there are 35½ people chasing every job?
Will not the Minister's words ring hollow to those people? When will the Government do something about long-term unemployment, following 10 consecutive rises in the numbers of long-term unemployed?

Miss Widdecombe: Does not the hon. Member think that it would be better if he told his constituents the good news about both his constituency and the west midlands? Does he not believe that he should draw his constituents' attention to the flourishing motor industry—so important to the west midlands—and to the fact that unemployment in his constituency, and not just the local area, has fallen by 2 per cent. since last month? Does not he feel that that would be a positive, kinder and more humane message than preaching gloom and doom?

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the west midlands can benefit from the rise in motor car production in Britain when it is falling dramatically in Germany? Does she agree that unemployment in the west midlands will suffer if we adopt a national minimum wage, or if we ever adopted the job-destroying principles of the social chapter, as advocated by the Opposition?

Miss Widdecombe: I have pleasure in confirming that just about every Opposition policy would make it harder,

not easier, for employers to employ. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the motor industry and to the rise in vehicle registrations by 8·9 per cent. and in car production by 23·8 per cent. Why does not the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) take that message to his constituents and try to give the unemployed some hope?

Mr. Grocott: If the Minister has finished ranting for a moment, may I ask her to reflect on a simple truth? Even in the great depression of the 1930s, the west midlands sustained employment in manufacturing industry, and even took unemployed people from other more depressed parts of the country, but under the Government in the 1980s, there was a collapse of engineering employment in the west midlands. Does she blame the workers or the trade unions for this, or does she know—as I and most people in the west midlands know—that the real cause is a Government of unique economic and industrial incompetence?

Miss Widdecombe: I was under the impression that in the 1980s we were still suffering from the problems that we inherited from the Labour Government in the 1970s—[Interruption.] However, I am happy to talk about peaks —[Interruption.] I know that the Opposition do not want to hear about this, but they are going to hear it whether they like it or not. If we are to talk about peaks in the 1980s, perhaps we should point out that in the west midlands there has been a substantial fall in unemployment since that peak, due to the policies of the Government and the revitalisation of the motor industry, none of which would have happened under Labour policies not only of a national minumum wage but of hedging and prescribing for employment instead of getting on and creating it.

Mr. Ian Bruce: In welcoming my hon. Friend to her position at the Department of Employment, may I ask whether she has compared the figures for Japanese-owned motor car companies in Japan, America and mainland Europe with the figures for the United Kingdom? Has she noticed that such companies are cutting production everywhere but in the United Kingdom? What does that tell my hon. Friend about the conditions for manufacturing industry in Britain compared with the rest of the world?

Miss Widdecombe: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks of welcome, which were noticeably lacking from the Opposition Front Bench. Of course my hon. Friend is right. The inward investment that Britain is experiencing, compared with the difficulties being experienced elsewhere, stands as factual proof of the worth of the Government's policies. I should like to hear the Opposition welcome that inward investment instead of brushing it aside.

Union Membership

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage membership of trade unions.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: It is for trade unions themselves to encourage union membership by demonstrating that they can provide effective services and that they have the ability to adapt to the needs and aspirations of individual employees in the modern working environment.

Mrs. Fyfe: We all expected a reply of that nature from the Minister. Will he turn his attention to the Economic League, which has ceased its activities after 73 years of lying and sneering about trade unionists to discourage activity in the workplace'? Will he find out what happened to the records of the Economic League and will he put an end to discrimination against people in the work force on the grounds of their real or supposed political opinions?

Mr. Forsyth: I have no responsibility for the Economic League, but I gather that the hon. Lady's first attempt at a question was to invite the Government to say what their plans were to discourage trade union membership. I am sure that she will join me in recognising that the reforms that we carried out in the 1980s made trade unions far more willing to consider the interests of their membership and gave the membership far more control over the trade unions. That was a welcome step forward.
The position on discrimination against people on grounds of trade union membership remains the same as it has always been. It is against the law for employers to discriminate against people on the grounds of trade union membership.

Mr. Dunn: The worst example of trade union coercion was in the 1970s when people were forced to join trade unions against their will. Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest disincentive to joining a trade union is the link between the trade union movement and the Labour party?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. The trade union movement would be much better if it disengaged from the Labour party and the Labour party would be much better if it had the guts, the power and the ability to disengage itself from the trade union movement.
On the point about the closed shop, I also have a long memory. It comes ill from Opposition Members to pose as the champions of individual rights when they consistently opposed our plans to give individuals the right to join a trade union of choice.

Mr. Galbraith: Do not the Government actively discourage trade unionism? Did not the Government ban trade unions at Government communications headquarters and change the trade union Bill now before the House to allow employers to bribe their employees to give up trade union membership? Do not those actions speak louder than any mealy-mouthed words from the Minister?

Mr. Forsyth: No, it is not true that the Government made an amendment to the trade union Bill to allow employers to bribe people not to be members of a trade union. That is against the law and will continue to be against the law. It is true that some people choose not to have their terms and conditions negotiated by collective bargaining arrangements, and the Government believe that they should be free to make that choice while remaining members of a trade union. There are a million trade union members whose terms and conditions are not negotiated by collective bargaining and they must be rather puzzled by the Labour party's position, which is to tell them that their trade union membership is worthless.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Minister commend to the rest of the United Kingdom the practice which applies in Northern Ireland whereby trade unionists who pay their political contribution are denied the right to join the British Labour party?

Mr. Forsyth: My responsibilities do not extend to Northern Ireland, but I will happily draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many months, since May 1979, the northern region has had the highest regional unemployment rate in mainland Britain.

Miss Widdecombe: I regret, in each month.

Mr. Milburn: For those who miseed the Minister's reply, she said that in each month since May 1979 the northern region has had the highest level of unemployment in mainland Britain. Is the Minister not ashamed of her Government's record? What message does she believe that it conveys to the 168,000 people currently unemployed in the northern region, who lack nothing in the way of skill or enterprise but apparently everything in the way of active Government support? Does she not realise that without new investment, the weekly haemorrhage of job losses and training cuts will continue unabated and her Government will stand guilty of simply writing off the north?

Miss Widdecombe: The way to write off the north would be to deny all that is happening there. It would be to deny the inward investment and the fact that it has 17 per cent. of Japanese manufactures in this country. It would be to deny that unemployment in the north now and last month fell much faster than unemployment nationally. It would be to fail to point to the vacancies that are being filled and to the substantial training programmes. I say to the hon. Gentleman what I said to his hon: Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden): why will he not bring hope instead of misery to the unemployed?

Mr. Jopling: Will my hon. Friend understand that the overall unemployment figures in the north cover wide differences? Will she take a particular interest in the situation in west Cumbria, which will be affected by yesterday's announcement of a delay in the opening of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant? In itself, that is welcome in that it will ensure that when the plant eventually opens it will be safe, but in the short run it will inevitably give rise to serious unemployment. Will the Minister and her right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Employment take a great interest in the problems of west Cumbria?

Miss Widdecombe: I can assure my right hon. Friend that I will take that interest. I agree with what he says about the long-term prospects. THORP is a major example of inward investment, with some £1·6 billion advanced by overseas customers, and it will support 3,000 permanent jobs. That is the sort of message of hope that I was endeavouring to bring to Opposition Members and I have pleasure in telling my right hon. Friend that I will keep in touch with him on this issue.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency of Blyth Valley over the past few years there has been an increase of 40 per cent. in the number of young people between the ages of 18 and 25 on the unemployment register? When will she and other Ministers


get on their bikes and go up there and create some jobs in the north east instead of giving us waffle from the Dispatch Box?

Miss Widdecombe: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that if inward investment, increasing vacancies and falling trends in unemployment are waffle, then his constituents want waffle.

Works Councils

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the EC's plans to introduce statutory works councils.

Mr. David Hunt: The Government believe that statutory works councils would greatly damage the United Kingdom's competitiveness, and if such proposals are made we will veto them.

Mr. Riddick: At a time when European countries are in danger of pricing themselves out of world markets, is it not the height of folly for the European Commission to be proposing statutory works councils, which would be costly to industry, bureaucratic and wholly unnecessary? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Conservative Government will resist those proposals to the bitter end? Does not industry support the Tories because the Tories support policies which benefit and help industry?

Mr. Hunt: I give my hon. Friend the unqualified assurance that he seeks. At the last Social Affairs Council in Luxembourg, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I made it clear to our fellow Ministers that the most important item on the agenda of the European Community is the reduction of unemployment, which is rising in almost every European Community country except the United Kingdom. That will be achieved by introducing measures which improve competitiveness and not by the Commission's proposals.

Ms Eagle: Why is any idea of co-operation in the workplace anathema to the Conservative party? Surely productivity and morale will improve if the work force is not subject to authoritarian rules and macho management. Why do the Government always oppose, for spurious cost reasons, proposals designed to secure co-operation between the work force and management and to ensure that workers have positive rights in the workplace?

Mr. Hunt: The Government have pioneered many innovative and imaginative forms of co-operation in the workplace, but we shall not allow co-operation to be introduced in legislative form. That would be highly restrictive, but it is what statutory works councils would introduce. We would then be back to the bad old days of the 1960s and 1970s. I know that Opposition Members enjoyed those days because they gave power to a few trade union leaders, but the vast majority of people in this country do not want to return to that form of legislated co-operation. We want the voluntary partnership that has become so evident under this Government.

Dr. Liam Fox: Is my hon. Friend aware that some multinationals have estimated the cost of the proposal at between £500,000 and £1 million per year? Would that not be bad for business, bad for Britain and bad for Europe as a whole in the world market?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. I should like each European Community proposal to be tested first for its effect on the competitiveness of the European Community. We need such a test to prevent the introduction of proposals which will merely further undermine competitiveness and result in further job losses.

Mr. Dobson: If the Tory party's policies in the past 14 years have been the acme of competitiveness, why does Britain have the second biggest trade deficit in Europe and the biggest trade deficit of any European Community country with the rest of the world?

Mr. Hunt: All right. If the hon. Gentleman wants facts, let him listen to these: inflation is at its lowest for 30 years, interest rates are lower in this country than anywhere else in the whole of the European Community, manufacturing output is up by more than 2 per cent., manufacturing productivity is up by 7·8 per cent., retail sales up by 3 per cent., consumer spending up by 2·3 per cent., car registrations up by 7·5 per cent., housing starts up by 17 per cent., and—the most chilling factor for the Labour party—strikes at their lowest level for 70 years. That is the record on which we fight.

Aerospace Industry (Redundancies)

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of redundancies which have occurred in the aerospace industry since 1 January 1992; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The information is not available.

Mr. Jones: Is the Minister not concerned at the fact that tens of thousands of the most skilled workers in our biggest industry—British Aerospace—are losing their jobs? This must be a tragic waste. Does the hon. Gentleman know that at the British Aerospace works in Broughton in my constituency more than 1,000 people have lost their jobs in the past year? Will he investigate the proposal by Raytheon to buy Corporate Jets from British Aerospace, bearing in mind the fact that Corporate Jets has lost 269 jobs in my constituency? Will he attempt to secure from the new company a guarantee that my constituents will have more than three years' work if it buys from British Aerospace?

Mr. Forsyth: It is true that the aerospace industry has been hit by the downturn in the world market. The 1980s saw growth of about 36 per cent. in sales. With the skills that the British aerospace industry has, I am sure that we can achieve that again in the 1990s. The question that the hon. Gentleman has put to me is one for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman has worked long and hard in the interests of his constituents who are involved in executive jet production. I understand that British Aerospace, in considering the sale of the company at Broughton, intends to secure a guaranteed work period of about three years as part of the arrangement. The sale has been referred to the Director General of Fair Trading, and I cannot say any more at this stage. I can, however, promise the hon. Gentleman that both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my right


hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment are very conscious of the importance of retaining jobs in this successful industry, which is vital to Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Malnutrition and Infant Mortality (Iraq)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what is his most recent information from UNICEF about the alleged infringements of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child involving malnutrition and infant mortality in Iraq.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): No such information has been received from the United Nations Children's Fund, but we remain in close touch with United Nations agencies about the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the Prime Minister been briefed by the Foreign Secretary and by Sir Michael Burton about the visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and Tim Llewellyn to the paediatric hospital in Baghdad, where we saw lines of infants with swollen tummies and swollen private parts expiring as a result of malnutrition-related diseases such as marasmus? Does the west have any obligation to do something for injured infants who are without pharmaceuticals or medicines as a result of the missile attack on Baghdad? Would it not be wise, for reasons that I gave to Sir Michael Burton and the Foreign Secretary, at least to hear what the Iraqi people have to say?

The Prime Minister: I am, of course, aware of the hon. Gentleman's humanitarian concerns and of his discussions and his report to the Foreign Secretary. However, I think that he is misguided in the way in which he attributes responsibility. To be frank with the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that it is not the responsibility of external countries that the difficulties in Iraq, which led to the devastating situation, have been brought about. We very much wish that this were not the situation. However, it is, and over recent months we have done what we could to put it right. With regard to the attack, I shall not respond directly to the hon. Gentleman as the matter was widely discussed in the House yesterday.

Engagements

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend share my sense of injustice about the fact that, on the only occasion this Session when I have the good fortune to be able to ask him a question on television, the BBC is showing Wimbledon on both channels? Would riot the watching public be immensely encouraged to learn that we are today considering the Criminal Justice Bill and that the police are going to make lighting crime and protecting the public their top priority, unencumbered by unnecessary paperwork?

The Prime Minister: With no disrespect to my hon. Friend's question, I think that that is the best decision by the BBC that I have heard for some time—game, set and match to the BBC, I think. I agree with the substance of my hon. Friend's question. What most people in this country wish to ensure is that our police service is doing the job we most wish to see it do, that is to say, not pushing paper but catching criminals.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is three months to the day since the House debated the Government's White Paper on the coal industry? Does he recollect that the public, the press and some of his own Back Benchers were led to believe that 12 pits would be saved by that White Paper? Why is it that, only three months later, three of the 12 pits face closure?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there have been severe geological problems at some of those pits, resulting in an excessive level of cost. British Coal has talked to the men about the problems. I understand that at Rufford the men voted to close the pit when the existing face is exhausted and at Markham they agreed to immediate closure. British Coal is still committed to the market-testing exercise.

Mr. Smith: Does the Prime Minister not understand what is happening to the miners—that if they do not vote for closure they lose redundancy payments? Does he not understand what is happening in the market? British Coal is now offering coal at a knock-down price which would give the consumer much cheaper electricity than he or she could get from any other source. If the two privatised generators still will not buy at that price, does that not prove that the market is rigged against coal and that, if it goes on, pit after pit will close and will shall lose a vital industry?

The Prime Minister: The reason for taking the decisions on coal some months ago was to make sure that there is a viable industry that can continue in the future. It will be a smaller industry than once it was, for it has been shrinking in size year on year over the past 30 years. That is a fact of life which the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I and every hon. Member well understand. It is the market for coal which will determine the size of the industry. The Government have made it clear that they are willing to provide a subsidy to help the deep mining industry secure supplementary coal to generators at world prices. That was and is the position.

Mr. Smith: Does the Prime Minister not remember clearly that the House was led to believe that 12 pits would be saved as a result of the White Paper? Why does he not come clean and admit that the White Paper was a fraud and is now exposed as a fraud? Is it not a perfect example of the style of the Prime Minister and his Government that they produced a White Paper for 36 hours' publicity, which has not survived for three months in the real world?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman might perhaps have observed what Mr. Scargill had to say at lunchtime when he said:
The Labour leadership is more interested in opinion polls and images rather than principles and real policies.

Miss Emma Nicholson: During his busy day, has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to read the letter from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in The


London Literary Review, in which he gives inaccurate medical information on the state of child health in Iraq? Will the Prime Minister remind the hon. Gentleman that United Nations Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 of August and September 1991 authorised Iraq to export $16 billion worth of oil to buy medicines over a six-month period but that those arrangements have never been implemented?

The Prime Minister: I have not seen that particular letter, but my hon. Friend is quite right about the proposition that has been available to Iraq for well over a year whereby it could export oil and, in return, have medical and other equipment. The Government of Iraq—Saddam Hussein—chose not to take up that option. For that reason, he is primarily to blame for the present difficulties in treating people who are sick and ill in Iraq.

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hanson: Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House and to the many pensioners lobbying Parliament today that the Conservatives have spent millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on tax relief to the wealthiest members of Lloyd's, while continuing to persist with their policy of putting VAT on gas and electricity? Does he appreciate that that is typical of the present Government?

The Prime Minister: It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent the position. The fact is that the success of Conservative policies over the years has enabled pensioners' incomes to increase by 30 per cent.—37 per cent. net of housing costs—since 1979. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps remind himself, and tell others, which party tried to cut the Christmas bonus, cut spending on the national health service, failed to uprate pensions and let inflation get out of control and wreck the savings of millions of pensioners.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I share my right hon. Friend's approval that Wimbledon is monopolising all channels, but, in the context of the necessary review of public spending, may I ask for an assurance that there will be a rigorous clamp-down on all those who are claiming benefit on fraudulent grounds at the expense of those most worthy of help in society, to whom benefits should be targeted?

The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend both assurances. I assure him that the Government will honour their pledges to uprate state retirement and child benefits and so protect the most vulnerable in society. I also assure him that those who try to defraud the benefits system will find it increasingly difficult to do so. They will come up against a Government anti-fraud policy which expects to net savings of nearly £1 billion this year. We want those resources so as to make sure that they are available for those who need them most. I make no apology for protecting taxpayers from those who seek to abuse the system.

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Jones: In view of the revelations at the trial of Christopher Clunis, who stabbed and killed Jonathan Zito, will the Prime Minister accept that although most people suffering from schizophrenia are not dangerous, the failure of the Government's care in the community policy means that dangerous mentally ill people are walking the streets? What does he intend to do about that, and will he now order a public inquiry into the case and its implications for community care, as requested by Mr. Zito's widow?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady may not know it, but the care in the community policy has been a cross-party policy in the House for many years. Everyone is deeply sorry to hear about that tragic case, and I have deep sympathy for Mrs. Zito and the other relatives concerned. Nevertheless, I am sure that our community care policy is right for the patients concerned. It is right to encourage them generally to lead as independent a life as possible away from large-scale institutions. To that end, we now devote spending of more than £2 billion per year, and we have increased it substantially to ensure that the resources devoted to it are able to meet the problems which exist.
I have to say to the hon. Lady that picking out a tragic case such as that in the way that she did does no credit to her.

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Evennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom is the only leading country in Europe experiencing economic recovery? Will he further confirm that while other countries in the European Community languish in recession, our economy has low inflation, falling unemployment, low wage settlements and the highest growth rate in Europe? Does he agree that that is good news for British business men and exporters and will help the nation to get roaring forward again economically?

The Prime Minister: I believe that it is good news for everybody, with the possible exception of some Opposition Members for whom good news is extremely bad news. Britain was the first country in Europe to go into the recession; it is now among the first to emerge. Although conditions abroad throughout the Community may be difficult for some time, the Community itself and others are now forecasting that we shall have the highest growth rate in the Community this year and the highest growth rate again next year.

Mr. Molyneaux: Have Her Majesty's Government given any commitment to the Labour party's proposals for joint authority over Northern Ireland, as set out in the documents published this morning?

The Prime Minister: The first I heard of the apparent proposals by the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland was when I read that astonishing story in The Guardian this morning. I have no means of knowing


whether The Guardian story is right or wrong. I hope that it is wrong, but, as Opposition Members seem to have questions planted upon them by The Guardian, it does not seem unreasonable to me that they may plant their policies upon The Guardian themselves. I can only say that that policy, if it is the policy of the Labour party, is a recipe for disaster. If it is true, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will request the resignation of his spokesman this day. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has the obligation to tell the people of Northern Ireland whether or not that is the policy of the Labour party.

Mr. Brandreth: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on literally flying the flag in support of Manchester's Olympic bid? Does he agree that the bid is bringing more money, more jobs and more prestige to an area of this country which is already world class?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that hosting the Olympic games in Manchester would be good for the north-west, good for Britain and good for the Olympics. That is why the Government are determined to do all that they can to back Manchester's bid to bring the Olympics here for the millennium. We have provided full support for that bid. I was delighted to welcome the International Olympic Committee to Downing street yesterday. I shall be meeting the president of the IOC next month, and I look forward to going to Monte Carlo to help to promote the bid in September. The Olympic games which mark the year 2000 will have a special significance and I want to see those games here in Britain—in Manchester.

Personal Statement

Mr. Michael Mates: This is the third and, I trust, the last personal statement upon resignation that this House will hear during this Session. I did not want to make it, I did not want to resign, but now I can at last explain what I have been doing and why. I think that I owe it to the House, I owe it to my colleagues, I owe it to my family and friends, and I owe it, above all, to my constituents to whom I am ultimately accountable.
First, I think that most people here will know how desperately sad I am to have relinquished a job which I loved and which has been the greatest challenge of my political life. I am more grateful than words can say to the Prime Minister for giving me the chance; to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who has led our team in one of the most difficult jobs in the Government with wisdom, courage, honour and utter integrity, and who has gained huge respect throughout Northern Ireland and here for his performance; to the ministerial team—good friends all—with whom I have been so happy to serve, not forgetting my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), whose recent promotion so delighted us all in the Office and all his friends in the Province; to the officials, both in the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland civil service, under the outstanding leadership of two dedicated permanent secretaries; to all the staff throughout the departments for which I had responsibility; and, above all, to my own team, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), my Parliamentary Private Secretary; to Nigel and Alison, to Nannette and Neil, Joanne and Lisa, Susan and Liz, and my escorts in Northern Ireland. I have never known such a dedicated and happy team whose loyalty and devotion has been overwhelming.
My right hon. Friend the new Minister of State, who has my heartfelt good wishes as he takes up my reins, starts with the advantage of the best team that a man could want.
During these past weeks, I have kept silent. I have kept faith with the system, and I have said nothing without the express permission of No. 10. I have no criticism in this matter of the Prime Minister—far from it—or of the Government, or of the two Attorneys-General with whom I have corresponded. But I do have something to say about the law enforcement agencies, which, when the House has heard me, will, I hope, cause the Government to set up an urgent independent inquiry into what has happened.
I do not know whether Mr. Asil Nadir is innocent or guilty. No part of any of my representations has sought either to plead his innocence or to try to establish it. That is for the courts. Those who have alleged that I was trying to help him to escape from the consequences of any of his actions have totally misunderstood what I have been trying to do.
The House may have heard how my involvement began, in the autumn of 1991, through a constituent who brought me details of alleged wrongdoing by the authorities in the case of Mr. Nadir. I asked to meet Mr. Nadir. That was the first time that I had met him or anyone associated with his businesses. He gave me his account of what happened and was able to corroborate most of what he said.
Some of his complaints concerned his advisers in the City; others concerned official institutions: the Inland Revenue, the Serious Fraud Office and the police. There have been many more allegations over the past weeks of involvement by others: other national agencies, international agencies and other arms of various Governments. Many of those allegations have been wrongly attributed to me. I shall not pursue this line this afternoon, but of course I would be happy to tell anything I know about these matters to an independent inquiry.
With Mr. Nadir's permission, I spoke to Mr. Anthony Scrivener QC, until recently chairman of the Bar. It was clear that the defence team were concerned at some of the matters that had arisen during the course of the prosecution. He confirmed that he thought that the Attorney-General should be made aware of what was going on.
I met the then Attorney-General to express my concern. At his request, I then wrote to him the first of the letters that have brought me to the position in which I find myself today. The only persons who had copies of those letters were the Attorney-General, Mr. Nadir and the Serious Fraud Office. It is a matter perhaps of speculation who leaked the letter to the press last week.
It was claimed that I was embarrassed by this leak. Far from it: three days previously I had asked the Attorney-General's permission to publish all the correspondence between us, because I felt that it was the only way to bring out into the open the reasons for my involvement. The Attorney-General indicated that this might give him some difficulty. I respected that view and will continue to do so, although I would readily make this correspondence available to any inquiry.
Of course, I understand why the press would publish a letter or any other material leaked to them. I make no criticism of them for that. I just ask that, with me gone, inquiring journalists now ask the following questions. Why was material being selectively leaked to them? Whose agenda was being served by its publication? Why was the Serious Fraud Office talking to the press? The other law departments remained commendably tight-lipped and leak-proof, but the Serious Fraud Office spoke to the press and was even prepared to be quoted—for example,
We kept asking why he is doing all of this",
a senior Serious Fraud Office source said to a newspaper.
There was growing irritation at the repeated need to provide information enabling the Attorney General to respond to the points raised by Mates.
Many have asked why I became involved in this case and why I continued my involvement after I joined the Government. I must say at once that, on the latter point, I took careful advice that it was proper for me to pursue this matter as a Minister. Let me simply lay out the facts as they were presented to me at the beginning and as they developed in the months that followed. I leave it to the House to judge, and I hope ultimately to an independent inquiry to decide, whether what I did was right or wrong.
I start with a raid on South Audley Management, a property management company controlled by Mr. Nadir's family, on 19 September 1991. The raid was highly publicised. The press and television had been warned in advance and were in attendance when the raid took place. Inevitably, the publicity surrounding the raid had a serious effect on the share price of Polly Peck International, or PPI as I shall now call it. The following day, 20 September 1991, Mr. Nadir was asked to go to the Serious Fraud


Office headquarters in Elm street for an interview, during which time his presence was announced by the SFO to the press. That resulted in an inevitable blaze of publicity as he left the building.
On 30 October, the SFO mounted a highly publicised raid on the headquarters of PPI in Berkeley square. fin fact, 10 minutes before the police arrived, journalists had knocked on the door and told PPI staff that they were there in answer to an invitation from the SFO.
There is a further point. By that time, PPI was already in administration. By arrangement with the administrators, the SFO had already had full access to PPI headquarters and to all the documents there. Its people were already working inside the building. The SFO was effectively launching a raid in the full glare of publicity against the administrators. This clearly had a cumulative effect on the public's perception of both PPI and Mr. Nadir. When Mr. Nadir returned from a trip abroad to assist the administrators, the media were given advance warning of the intention to arrest him at the airport, so they were there in force to watch the event. A process of what some might call trial by media had begun, aided and encouraged by the Serious Fraud Office.
For its part, the SFO has consistently maintained that its investigations and thus its ability to bring the case to trial have been hampered and delayed by its inability to operate in Turkish-controlled Northern Cyprus. The defence therefore offered an opportunity to short-circuit the problem. In June 1991, it commissioned Binder Hamlyn, one of Britain's leading accountancy firms, to carry out its own investigation into the relationship between Polly Peck in London and its subsidiaries in Northern Cyprus, which formed the basis of the charges.
The SFO's first response was that Binder Hamlyn must have been shown forged documents. When the defence then presented the SFO with a report from an independent forensic expert, on the SFO's approved list, saying that that was not so, it changed its ground and, despite requests from the defence to go to Northern Cyprus to check the accounts, it ha. s maintained that that would be impossible because Northern Cyprus is not a recognised country.
It is well known that the police have on occasions visited Northern Cyprus to make inquiries in connection with criminal proceedings in this country. I simply do not understand why they could not follow the usual practice. Two police officers visited Northern Cyprus just after this. Now, it is claimed, they were returning illegal immigrants, which shows that police officers do visit Northern Cyprus. However, there is evidence that the officers asked detailed questions about the assets of Polly Peck subsidiaries in Northern Cyprus and, at the very least, there is a severe inconsistency here.
There seems too to be some inconsistency over who made the complaints that the SFO was investigating. The present charges do not arise as a result of a complaint by the stock exchange and there is evidence of improper collusion between a senior officer of the Inland Revenue and the Serious Fraud Office. While the Serious Fraud Office denies any such collusion, the officer involved has admitted it to a journalist, whose name I know and who would be happy to give the details of this illegal collusion to an independent inquiry. Mr. Nadir and his advisers believe that he has been denied the opportunity properly to prepare his defence. They also believe that he has in the process been denied his rights under the law.

Madam Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he should bear in mind that Mr. Nadir still stands charged with serious offences in this country on which at some future date he may stand trial. In accordance with the House's strict rules on matters of sub judice, I hope that he will not follow in detail the line on which he now appears to be embarking. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take to heart my cautionary words.

Mr. Mates: Indeed, I will, Madam Speaker—I am happy to do so. Perhaps I can assist you and the House if I tell you that I have had this script looked at very carefully by a senior lawyer with exactly that in mind. I have no—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the House has its own sub judice rules which it imposes on itself and which I am imposing on the hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I caution him seriously about the area on which he now seems to be embarking.

Mr. Mates: During the raid on Polly Peck's headquarters in October 1990, many documents were seized. Professional privilege was claimed by Mr. Nadir's lawyers and it was agreed that the documents would be placed in sealed bags until the issue was resolved by independent counsel.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am extremely reluctant to continue to caution the hon. Gentleman. It is a personal statement and it is normally heard uninterrupted, and I am reluctant to interrupt. However, I caution the hon. Gentleman that we have our sub judice rules in the House and I will see that they are carried out.

Mr. Mates: Madam Speaker, I am embarrassed. Does it help you if I say that what I am saying now is what I received in writing from the Attorney-General? He has written to me about these matters and I am simply reporting to the House some aspects of the handling of the case. It has nothing to do with what is going on in court; it is the handling of the case by the authorities. If you tell me that the House cannot hear this——

Madam Speaker: Order. What the hon. Gentleman is saying may well be used during a pending case, and that is my concern. I ask the hon. Gentleman to re-examine his notes and to see that the House is given the information that he wishes it to have which is not sub judice and which cannot be used in a future trial. That is the point that I am trying to get across.

Mr. Mates: Madam Speaker, I hear what you are saying. Please trust me. I am not talking about matters that will be the subject of the charges and the proceedings in court. I am talking about the handling of the case, which I was looking into—quite properly, I have been told—with the Attorney and over which I have now lost my job. I think that the House is entitled to know about it. In fact, these matters are already in the public domain.
It was agreed that the privilege that was claimed about the documents would be assessed by independent counsel. He found that the vast majority of the documents in the sealed bags were privileged documents. But before counsel saw the documents——

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow this statement to continue with the use of information which, whether or not it is in the public domain, may well be used in a court


of law. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises the seriousness of the action that he is now taking. I have a responsibility in this House to carry out its rules and regulations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look carefully at his notes.

Ms Clare Short: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no point of order. Two weeks ago, I cautioned the House that there can be no interruption of a personal statement. I am extremely embarrassed to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I will take no points of order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has taken seriously the words that I have been trying to put across to him.

Mr. Mates: Indeed I have. This passage in my speech has been confirmed in writing to me and has been passed on to Mr. Nadir's advisers and others by the Attorney-General. I could have published the letter. It is written to me. If I had it with me, I could read it to the House. No one could stop me from reading out a letter from a Minister to a Member of Parliament. That is not covered by any sort of privilege at all.

Madam Speaker: Order. I inform the hon. Gentleman that I certainly do have the authority to stop him reading it out if I thought it to be sub judice. [Interruption.] The House is very restless, and understandably so. It must now come to order. We must hear the hon. Gentleman a little more.

Mr. Mates: It was agreed that this dispute—and confirmed to me by the Attorney-General that it was agreed—would be solved by an independent counsel looking at the papers to see whether they were privileged. The point that I wish to make—which has been acknowledged—is that, before the counsel saw those papers, the SFO had opened the bags. It has admitted that two bags were opened but claimed that that was due to a misunderstanding. In fact, more than two bags were opened, because other papers from other bags have found their way into the hands of the administrators. That is another unsatisfactory part of this story which needs to be investigated.
But that was not the only occasion on which privileged papers, vital to Mr. Nadir's defence, had been mishandled. In March of this year, Mr. Nadir's house was raided by the solicitors for the trustees in bankruptcy. As well as taking various personal effects—one of which I later replaced in inscribed form—they took away all of his privileged defence papers. He protested and was informed in writing that, if he wished to see the papers, he should make an appointment to see them. He was told to specify in advance which papers he wanted to see, and to call at the trustees' offices during working hours when he could examine them, but not take them away. I remind the House that they were his own papers.
I turn finally to what the House may view as the most serious aspect of this whole affair, namely, that quite improper pressure has apparently been exercised by the SFO upon the trial judge, Mr. Justice Tucker.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am now requiring the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. He must resume his seat.

Mr. Mates: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mates: This has been reported in the newspapers, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. It has nothing whatsoever to do with publicity or newspapers. I am listening to a personal statement from the hon. Gentleman, not what appears in the newspapers. It is the hon. Gentleman's personal statement that I want to hear.

Mr. Mates: It is this sequence of events, Madam Speaker, above all, that demands an independent inquiry. If one cannot come to the House and tell it what is wrong with the system—if one cannot speak in this place, not about innocence or guilt, not about trial, not about sub judice, but about what has gone wrong with the system—what is the point, Madam Speaker, of being here?

Madam Speaker: It is after the trial that the hon. Gentleman must give his information. That is the point.

Mr. Mates: On 6 November, during the hearing in court of an application to vary Mr. Nadir's bail, counsel for the SFO said that the police were investigating a complaint that there was a conspiracy to bribe Mr. Justice Tucker, the trial judge, and that he should consider standing down because it might be necessary to interview him. The allegation was that a sum of money would be paid to the judge following the success of the application to vary bail.
At a subsequent hearing in court in December, the chief superintendent responsible for investigating the allegation of attempted bribery told the court, when cross-examined, that he had never had evidence that would justify interviewing the judge, nor had the police ever declared their intention to do so. The only conclusion is that the SFO misled the judge about the intentions of the police. The House will also realise that the mere making of such an allegation in court could compromise any chance of the judge being seen to be impartial. Quite rightly, he refused to give up the case.
Then, at a hearing in March 1993, another bizarre suggestion was made by counsel, namely, that the police were investigating a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The suspected conspirators were, said counsel, Mr. Nadir, Mr. Wyn Jones, Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Mr. Anthony Scrivener, QC, and the judge himself, Mr. Justice Tucker. Needless to say, the police have never questioned the police, Mr. Wyn Jones or Mr. Scrivener. This appears to have been a deliberate attempt to destabilise the defence.
The day before, as on the day before so many preparatory hearings, Mr. Nadir was arrested. He was cautioned and interviewed on suspicion of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and the co-conspirators that I have mentioned were named. At the end of the interview his solicitor inquired whether any other of the suspected conspirators had been arrested or interviewed. The House will not be surprised to know that the answer to that was no.
I have the verbatim transcripts of the court proceedings, which substantiate everything that I have


said. Of course, I shall make them available to an inquiry. [Interruption.] Relax, Madam Speaker; I am on safer ground now.
I reported this to the Attorney-General in a meeting. I have undertaken to retain the confidence of those meetings, but I think that I can say that I had to give him a moment to get over his surprise. He felt sure that I had got it wrong and that the alleged conspiracy was against the judge rather than involving him. He now knows that I was right.
At that meeting I told my right hon. and learned Friend that I was increasingly uncomfortable with my position as interlocutor in the matter while a member of the Government and I urged him most strongly to speak directly to Mr. Scrivener and the legal advisers about it, lawyer to lawyer. Mr. Scrivener tells me that, so far, no such meeting has taken place.
That concludes the factual account of the highlights of my involvement. I hope that all the House—this is not a party political matter—will now realise that only an independent inquiry can resolve this whole business and bring about the conditions in which it can be seen that there will be a fair trial for Mr. Nadir.
The cumulative effect of what happened in March and April—the alleged bribery of the judge, the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and the seizing of the defence papers—left Mr. Nadir in a state of severe depression and despair. It was in that context that a decision was taken to raise his spirits, and in that context I made the fateful decision to give him the watch.
I must emphasise that none of us had any idea that he might leave the United Kingdom. It came as a complete shock and was an action of which I strongly disapproved. It has clearly damaged his standing in the matter; and right hon. and hon. Members can see what it has done to me.
I have asked myself two questions. First, do I regret doing what I did? Well, given the effect that my actions have had on me and all around me, I bitterly regret what has happened. Secondly, in the same circumstances, would I get involved again? I hope that I would have the courage to do so. From the beginning, I have been persuaded that something was amiss within the system, and I have grown ever more convinced as events have unfolded. Surely we are here, either as Front or Back Benchers, to take up questions of apparent injustice, and if we should ever flinch from such a duty the reason for our existence as Members of Parliament would be much diminished.
As for me, I was guilty of one foolish indiscretion, but I have done nothing else improper and I hope that, when this whole story is told, this House will consider that throughout this affair I have acted as an honourable Member.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the presence of the Attorney-General, is it not absolutely a requirement that he should now make a statement about this highly unsatisfactory matter?

Madam Speaker: I have not been told that any Minister is seeking to make a statement.

BILLS PRESENTED

HUMAN RIGHTS (No. 2)

Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to provide protection to individuals and in the courts of the United

Kingdom for the rights and freedoms specified in the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; to entrench those rights and freedoms; to further provide for the establishment of a Human Rights Commission; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 219.]

SALE OF GOODS

Mr. Nigel Griffiths presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the sale and supply of goods: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 220.]

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS

Mr. Nigel Griffiths presented a Bill to amend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 221.]

UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS

Mr. Nigel Griffiths presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the extent to which under the law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland civil liability for breach of contract, or for negligence or other breach of duty, can be avoided by means of contract terms or otherwise, and under the law of Scotland civil liability can be avoided by means of contract terms: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 222.]

PRODUCT RECALLS

Mr. Nigel Griffiths presented a Bill to establish for the protection of consumers a new system of recalling unsafe goods; to amend the Consumer Protection Act 1987; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 223.]

CONSUMER GUARANTEES

Mr. Nigel Griffiths presented a Bill to provide for consumer guarantees; to amend the law relating to the sale and supply of goods; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 224.]

CONSUMER CREDIT (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Nigel Griffiths presented a Bill to amend sections 138 to 140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 relating to extortionate credit; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 225.]

FAIR TRADING

Mr. Nigel Griffiths presented a Bill to provide for a general duty to trade fairly; to amend the law relating to fair trading; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 226.]

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 98(5) ( Matter relating exclusively to Wales).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (WALES)

That the Matter of Local Government in Wales, being a Matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

SCHOOL INFORMATION

That the Education (School Information) (England) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1502) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Education (School Performance Information) (England) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1503) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

MEAT (HYGIENE)

That the Fresh Meat and Poultry Meat (Hygiene, Inspection and Examinations for Residues) (Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1360) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Farmed Game Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1359) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

POST OFFICE

That the Post Office (Abolition of Import Restrictions) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1324) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[ Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

Workplace Childcare

Ms Diane Abbott: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose upon employers meeting certain specified criteria the duty to make provision for child care and related facilities for their employees; and to provide for exemptions in certain cases.
The Bill would make it mandatory for employers of more than a certain size to provide workplace creches or nurseries, or some other appropriate child care.
In the 1980s, there was a steep rise in the number of women with children under five who went out to work. In 1981, they were 25 per cent. of the work force, but by 1991 the number had nearly doubled to 43 per cent. Yet it seems to me that the Government have entirely failed to meet that challenge. This country has almost the worst child care provision record in Europe. Only Portugal has worse facilities.
I am not arguing that all women should go out to work or that workplace creches are a suitable form of child care provision for every woman. I would argue that women want a range of provision that includes community nurseries and a tax regime that enables them to meet some of their child care costs——

Mr. Paul Flynn: And some men.

Ms Abbott: Yes, one that enables some men to meet some of their child care costs.
A genuinely enlightened Government, anticipating the needs of the labour force in the year 2000 and beyond, would take a positive policy position on workplace nurseries. Some Conservative Members may argue that, if some individuals make a private decision to go out to work, it is up to them to make private provision for their child care, and that there is no role for Government. On the contrary, I would argue that the nation's children are the nation's responsibility and—what is more—good child care, accessible to all, makes good practical sense. It makes good sense for children because we in Britain have a patchwork of child care provision and children's access to child care depends on where they live and how much money their parents have.
Hon. Members may have read recent surveys from the United States that show that inner-city children with access to good pre-school child care provision are likely to do better in school and are less likely to engage in crime and juvenile delinquency. If we take issues of law and order seriously, we should consider the role of pre-school child care in making children grow up to be law-abiding and fulfilled citizens.
Good child care makes sense for mothers because it enables women to go back to work and use their skills and training. Perhaps even more important, if proper child care, including workplace nurseries, were available in Britain, millions of women currently dependent on social security could go back to work and stand on their own two feet.
Good child care makes good sense for companies, which would not be wasting money on training people and it would reduce their staff turnover. A recent survey revealed that the cost of replacing even a bank clerk can be as high as £5,000 when one adds up the cost of advertising the post and training.
Above all, good child care makes sense for the nation. If we are to compete in the single European market in the 1990s and beyond, we need to maximise our use of human resources, and access to child care is a way of maximising the use of female human resources. Many trained and skilled women who go back to work after maternity leave have to take jobs for which they are over-qualified or part-time jobs simply because they cannot get good child care.
If we are engaged in a debate about what to do about the millions of single mothers dependent on social security, we have to take the issue of child care seriously. Living on social security is a degrading experience and few people do it willingly. If only the Government were willing to facilitate a range of child care, millions of women would be able to go out to work and support themselves.
Irrespective of legislation, the Government have a greater role to play in child care. Whitehall has more than 8,000 employees and 27 buildings, but only two workplace creches. The House of Commons has 116,000 sq m of space, 1,207 offices, 14 restaurants and nine bars with another bar being built, yet no creche. It seems to me that the House has ample facilities for drinkers but nothing for children. The House of Commons Commission said recently that there is no space for a creche. That is patently absurd. If we have thousands of square metres of space and hundreds of offices, I do not see why room cannot be found for a creche. It is a question not of room but of understanding the issue and having the will to do something about it.
The Government claim that child care can be left to the market. The market will never be able to provide child care on the level or scale that the current demographic pattern requires. If child care provision is left to the market, inner-city working-class children who could most benefit from high-quality child care will be denied access to it.
To give the lie to the Government's position, the

market, in the shape of employers, is now saying that the Government definitely have a role to play. In the past few weeks, major employers, including ICI, Rover and Shell, have set up a group called Employers for Child Care, which is committed to providing child care and calling on the Government to take a lead, play a role and plan provision.
The arguments against child care provision often come from people who have no responsibility for children and who believe that the issue can be brushed to one side. However, I put it to the House that, when we consider the changing labour force, the increasing numbers of working people who have children under five and the need to compete in Europe, the number of workplace nurseries we currently have—only 300—is derisory.
We all agree on the need to invest for growth. What more crucial and important investment could we make than in the nation's children and in their care? The Bill would play a role in providing a range of child care. Women throughout the country would welcome practical initiatives by the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Tony Banks, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mrs. Alice Mahon and Mrs. Barbara Roche.

WORKPLACE CHILDCARE

Ms Diane Abbott accordingly presented a Bill to impose upon employers meeting certain specified criteria the duty to make provision for child care and related facilities for their employees; and to provide for exemptions in certain cases: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 227.]

Points of Order

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Tourism is one of Scotland's most important industries. This afternoon, the Secretary of State for Scotland is holding a press conference in Edinburgh to announce Government policies for the structure of the tourist industry. I understand that the Secretary of State will also outline Government policies in that respect in a written answer to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).
I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, agree that that is totally unacceptable and an insult to the House. The House was entitled to hear from the Secretary of State for Scotland, to question him and to give its views on the important issue of Scottish tourism. This is not the first time that such a thing has happened. On previous occasions, you have condemned that practice as being completely unacceptable. I invite you to do the same again and to ask the Secretary of State to come to the House to explain the Government's proposals for that vital industry.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is for a Minister to decide whether he announces a change of policy by means of a written answer or at the Dispatch Box. it is not for the Speaker to determine the way in which a Minister makes a statement to the House.

Mr. John McFall: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Tourism is Scotland's biggest industry in terms of employment that it offers, and many communities in the highlands and islands and elsewhere depend for their life on tourism. The Secretary of State's proposals will have a major impact on many parts of Scotland. His action, apart from being grossly disrespectful to the House, says nothing for the attitude of the Scottish Office towards the Scottish people, in announcing a decision in that way. We have previously brought our worries about the Scottish Office's growing disrespect to the Floor of the House. To articulate those worries again, we put it to you today, Madam Speaker, that the Secretary of State has an obligation to respect and to make a statement to the House, so that it may deliberate on the issue, for the good of the people of Scotland.

Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the ruling that I just gave. The Minister concerned has already made a statement, by means of a written answer. It is not for the Speaker to instruct Ministers whether they should make a statement at the Dispatch Box or give a written answer. If any change to that convention is to be made, the Select Committee on Procedure should be requested to review the matter so that the changes that the hon. Gentleman is seeking may well take place.

Mr. Michael Jopling: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise a matter with regard to the personal statement made a few minutes ago. It has always been my understanding that personal statements were vetted by the Speaker before they were made, and——

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, and I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. He is 
long-standing Member of the House and I have great regard for his knowledge of procedure. However, the House has just heard a personal statement, and according to "Erskine May", no reference to a personal statement should be made afterwards. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to consider the matter later and to refer it to me again. As he knows, I try to apply the rules and regulations of the House without exception. It would be better if the matter were left there at this stage.

Mr. Jopling: If you wish, Madam Speaker, I shall not refer to today's events; instead, if I may, I shall refer to the practice of personal statements in general. I imagine that I can do so at any time.
I have always understood that personal statements were subject to clearance by the Speaker and that, in return, they were heard uninterrupted. It is clearly a delicate matter for anyone, even the Speaker, to interrupt a personal statement, and it should be done only when absolutely necessary.
I do not want an answer now, but I wonder whether you would consider overnight and possibly give an answer next week on whether the practice for all personal statements ought to be extended to include resignation statements. I understand that resignation statements are not now subject to vetting by the Speaker. Should all such statements in future become subject to the approval of the Speaker of the day?
I can understand how difficult it is for a Speaker to make a decision on the hoof, as it were, about a personal statement involving sub judice matters. Will you consider the matter overnight and perhaps make a statement either tomorrow or next week, as you wish, on whether you think it wise to refer the matter of personal statements to the Procedure Committee?

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows well that he has the authority to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee. If he leaves the matter with me, I will consider it, without necessarily giving any commitment about reporting to the House.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you study the operation of the sub judice rule in the House? Certain Members, including myself, are unhappy about the way in which the law operates at the moment. I have in mind, for example the case of Mr. Alan Clark, a former Member of Parliament. When hon. Members first sought to question him about his involvement in the Matrix Churchill affair, Mr. Clark claimed that he intended to sue a newspaper, and that therefore the matter was sub judice. He did not subsequently sue the newspaper or take any further action. Hon. Members were denied the opportunity of questioning Mr. Clark on that issue because of the sub judice rule. That is clearly an inadequate operation of the rule, and I ask you, Madam Speaker, to look at the matter for the longer term.

Madam Speaker: The operation of the sub judice rule is undoubtedly a matter for the Procedure Committee. The Committee recommended the rule to the House which, in turn, accepted it. I invite the hon. Gentleman to write to the Procedure Committee about the point that he has made.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair.]

New Clause 14

APPEAL AGAINST ORDER FORFEITING DRUG TRAFFICKING CASH

'.—(1) The following sections shall be inserted in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, after section 26—

Appeal against section 26 order.

26A.—(1) This section applies where an order for the forfeiture of cash ("the forfeiture order") is made under section 26 above by a magistrates' court.

(2) Any party to the proceedings in which the forfeiture order is made (other than the applicant for the order) may, before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the date on which it is made, appeal to the Crown Court or, in Northern Ireland, to a county court.

(3) An appeal under this section shall be by way of a rehearing.

(4) On an application made by the appellant to a magistrates' court at any time, that court may order the release of so much of the cash to which the forfeiture order relates as it considers appropriate to enable him to meet his legal expenses in connection with the appeal.

(5) The court hearing an appeal under this section may make such order as it considers appropriate.

(6) If it upholds the appeal, the court may order the release of the cash, or (as the case may be) the remaining cash, together with any accrued interest.

(7) Section 26(3) applies in relation to a rehearing on an appeal under this section as it applies to proceedings under section 26.

Appeal against section 26 order: Scotland.

26B. Any party to proceedings in which an order for the forfeiture of cash is made by the sheriff under section 26 above may appeal against the order to the Court of Session.".

(2) The Act of 1990 shall be further amended as follows.

(3) In section 26 (forfeiture of drug trafficking cash), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(4) Proceedings on an application under this section to the sheriff shall be civil proceedings.".

(4) In section 28 (procedure), the words "or appeals" shall be inserted after the word "applications" in each place where it occurs in subsection (2).

(5) In section 30 (forfeited cash to be paid into the Consolidated Fund), the following subsection shall be added at the end—

"(3) Subsection (2) above does not apply—

(a) where an appeal is made under section 26A or 26B above, before the appeal is determined or otherwise disposed of; and
(b) in any other case—

(i) where the forfeiture was ordered by a magistrates' court, before the end of the period of 30 days mentioned in section 26A(2); or
(ii) where the forfeiture was ordered by the sheriff, before the end of any period within which, in accordance with rules of court, an appeal under section 26B must be made.".

(6) The amendments made by this section apply only in relation to orders under section 26 of the Act of 1990 made on or after the date on which this section comes into force.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss Government amendment No. 19.

Mr. Maclean: The new clause inserts two new sections—26A and 26B—in the Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990. The new section 26A provides a right of appeal against an order made under section 26 of the 1990 Act for the forfeiture of cash which a magistrates court was satisfied represented the proceeds of drug trafficking. There are currently only limited rights of appeal in England and Wales against such orders, and application for "case stated" can be made on the grounds that the order was wrong in law or in excess of jurisdiction, but the merits of decision cannot be re-evaluated.
The matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) and by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) last year. We have since decided that it would be right to correct the situation. New section 26A will allow any party to the proceedings to appeal to the Crown court—or, in Northern Ireland, a county court—within 30 days of the order being made.
In effect, this right will not apply to prosecutors, as it is an appeal against the forfeiture of the cash. The appeal will take the form of a re-hearing, and the magistrates court will, on the application of the appellant, be able to release some of the cash to enable the appellant to meet his legal expenses for the appeal. The court hearing the appeal may make such order as it considers appropriate, and, if it upholds the appeal, may order the cash, together with accrued interest, to be released. The standard of proof for the re-hearing is the civil standard—the same standard as is applicable in the original hearing.
New section 26B expressly provides a right of appeal in Scotland, to the Court of Session. The rest of the new clause makes the necessary consequential changes to the 1990 Act. Subsection (5) disapplies section 30 of the Act, which provides that forfeited cash is paid into the Consolidated Fund where an appeal is made under section 26A, until the appeal is determined and until the time for making an appeal has expired.
Similar arrangements may apply in Scotland, where the period will be determined by the rules of court. That will mean that the forfeited cash can be retained in an interest-bearing account, pending the lodging and determination on an appeal, when it may have to be returned. That would not be possible if the money went straight into the Consolidated Fund, as is currently required by section 30.
The clause also makes it clear that the proceedings in Scotland under section 26 will be civil. That is necessary in order to ensure that the appropriate Scottish appeal provisions apply.
I think that the House will agree that this is a reasonable and sensible clause, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Alun Michael: The Minister always sounds sweetly reasonable when he brings yet more changes to this Bill. What he has said today sounds sweetly reasonable. The remarks that I shall address to this group of amendments will apply also to the next group, and I do not intend to repeat myself.
These are yet further changes which appear to be technical and helpful, but I must warn the House of the dangers of the process that the Bill is going through. This is yet more amendment, accepting points that have been made in criticism, to a Bill that started in the House of Lords, went through all its processes there, has been extensively amended in Committee, for which there is no effective revising period, and how now arrived at this stage.
I am not sure that there is a great deal to worry about in the amendments that the Minister has tabled. He has made it clear that they address issues that have been raised in earlier debates, and that they are designed to be constructive. However, there is a danger in the process of making law on the hoof. Will the Minister assure us that he has burned the midnight oil on this group of amendments to ensure that they are absolutely right? The Criminal Justice Act 1991 is an awful warning to legislators who come to the Dispatch Box with that sort of confidence. I hope that the Minister will think carefully and tell us whether he is that confident.
It is important to make these remarks at the outset of the debate, because we should remind ourselves that the Bill began by dealing only with drug trafficking, insider dealing and money laundering. It has been extended considerably. For instance, it has been extended, with the Opposition's support, to include terrorism, and it has been extended in response to Labour demands on matters such as previous convictions and the unit fines system, which led to a need for amendments to the 1991 Act. However, as will be clear from further debates, the Bill is still a missed opportunity.
This is a very late stage in the Bill's consideration. It started in the House of Lords many months ago and went into a sort of frozen state for several months after it was introduced in the House, when presumably all sorts of midnight oil was burnt in the Treasury, if not in the Home Office. In accepting amendments at this stage, the House should be assured by the Minister that they have been introduced with full and adequate care and consideration.

Mr. Maclean: The warnings of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) are particularly apposite, not just for this Bill but for any legislation where new clauses are introduced for the first time on Report. I accept that it is not the ideal way to create any legislation. The legislation will be important and will be subject to interpretation by the courts no matter how watertight and unambiguous we think we have made it. The hon. Gentleman quotes the Criminal Justice Act 1991 as a warning. Hon. Members from both sides of the House burned a considerable amount of midnight oil scrutinising that Bill, and they all believed that the system would work well, with its provisions for unit fines and previous convictions. No one, as I recall, popped up to warn that it would be wrong.

Mr. Michael: That is a calumny that the Minister continually repeats. The Opposition gave warnings, and I can state that with confidence. Further warnings were

given on that issue, which is not before us now, in October, when it seemed that Ministers then in office were rushing to implement it in a way that would bring out faults rather than strengths. I wish that he Minister would not repeat what is not correct but would accept that a foul-up was made—I accept that he has an alibi—by the previous Home Secretary and Minister of State, Home Office.

Mr. Maclean: I am not sure how many hon. Members could claim to have an alibi that would stand up in court. I say merely, let us look at the record of voting on the Bill, for which many Members on both sides of the House have many previous convictions to be taken into account. But let us not jump to a discussion that we shall probably have on later amendments.
I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point, but we have checked the clause carefully. I have burnt a little midnight oil considering the clause and many others. I am more reassured to know that my officials and parliamentary counsel have burnt considerably more than I have. We might have liked to make some other technical and difficult amendments, especially on shipping, but we decided that, because they would be so technical and because we could not guarantee that they would be as perfect as we would like, we would not table them. We shall debate that matter in a new Bill in another Session.
I take the general warning on board. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman likes what we are proposing. The amendment is sensible, and I am glad to have his support for it.

Mr. Michael Shersby: As the House knows, I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. I wish to declare that interest, in case any comments that I may make relate to matters in which it is interested.
New. clause 14 deals with an appeal against an order forfeiting drug trafficking cash. Will my hon. Friend the Minister be kind enough to explain for my benefit the precise way in which that will operate?
I am concerned about the extent to which the new clause could invite an almost automatic appeal. The court may order the release of cash to which the forfeiture order relates as it considers appropriate to enable an appellant to meet his legal expenses. If, consequently, the court allows the appeal, the remaining cash, with any accrued interest, must be released. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the new clause will not encourage automatic appeals against that offence?

Mr. Paul Boateng: In answering the question asked by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), will the Minister say whether the Home Office had discussions with the Lord Chancellor's Department about the implications of the new clause for legal aid applications? For instance, will somebody who appeals against an order made in the magistrates court be able to apply, as one applies in an ordinary appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court, for legal aid at the magistrates court and the Crown court, or will the legal aid already granted for the magistrates court hearing be extended to cover an appeal, within the relevant period, to the Crown court?
Where will an appellant's application to the magistrates court for legal aid be made, and will any sum forfeited by order of the court be taken into account in determining the applicant's eligibility for legal aid? Is it intended that. in


due course, we shall consider amendments to the regulations governing legal aid to enable these issues to be aired?

Mr. Maclean: First, I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that I do not think that automatic or frivolous appeals will be made, as there will always be a risk of an order for costs being made against the appellant if the appeal fails.
The court hearing the appeal can make such order as it considers appropriate, and if it upholds the appeal, it can order the cash, with accrued interest, to be released. Generally, we must trust the court to make the right determination of the amount of cash that it should release. Obviously, we shall keep this matter under constant review. It is not as if there will be very many appeals or very many cases; these are unique cases.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) asked about legal aid. I confirm that discussions have taken place with the Lord Chancellor's Department. Again, we are content that few such appeals and applications will be made. No legal aid will be available in the Crown court, but the proposal allows for the release of cash to meet the costs of such an appeal.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 15

POWER TO EXTEND CERTAIN OFFENCES TO CROWN SERVANTS AND TO EXEMPT REGULATORS ETC.

'. Schedule (Extensions and exemptions), which confers power on the Secretary of State to make regulations extending certain provisions to Crown servants and to make regulations exempting persons from certain offences, shall have effect.'. —[ Mr. Maclean].

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 20 to 24, No. 38, No. 26 and No. 27.

Mr. Maclean: The new clause and schedule give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to extend money laundering offences to Crown servants, and to exempt certain persons who are employed by supervising bodies from the failure to report offences under clauses, 18, 19, 47 and 50.
The power to extend the offences to cover Crown servants is necessary, because some Crown servants—I am thinking in particular of employees of the Department of National Savings—carry out duties and tasks that, in many respects, do not differ from those carried out by employees of banking and financial institutions in the private sector. The latter are, of course, covered by defences. The former, however, might not be, by virtue of Crown immunity.
We do not think that that difference in treatment can be justified. In any case, we are required by the EC directive to apply the offences and, in particular, the failure to report offences to all credit and financial institutions. The Department of National Savings undoubtedly falls into

that category, despite its Crown status, and it is right that the offences should in due course be extended by regulations to cover such employees.
The power does not put the general concept of Crown immunity into jeopardy. It is limited to specified money laundering offences—the acquisition offence, the offence of assisting another, the failure to report an offence, the tipping-off offence and the offence of prejudicing an investigation.
The exemption for supervisors from the suspicious reporting offence is necessary to enable us to combat money laundering through the regulatory system rather than at the expense of that system. We do not want to place on the supervisors a burden so onerous that it interferes with the performancce of their regulatory duties. We are obliged, under the directive, to impose on supervisors an express obligation to report suspicions of money laundering. This we shall do by regulations under the European Communities Act 1972.
With such an obligation in place, there is no need for the criminal offences to apply in addition. Indeed, if they were to do so, it might seriously harm the ability to exercise supervisory functions properly, as detecting suspicious transactions is a task for which regulators could easily be held responsible because of their special access to company accounts. We have therefore sought the right level at which to require supervisors to report their suspicions, without making them so anxious about the consequences of not doing so that they neglect their regulatory functions.
It is much better that the prime responsibility for reporting signs of money laundering or suspicious transactions should be given to the institution handling the money, and that the supervisors should be left with responsibility for ensuring that proper systems and practices are in place.
We have found a solution that fulfils all the requirements of the directive without undermining the integrity of the regulatory system.
Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 make consequential changes to clause 77. The provisions in subsection (2) of that clause relating to schedules 4 and 5 is being removed and replaced by the provisions of amendments No. 23 and 24. The other two amendments to schedule 4 will ensure that it takes full account of the new sections being put into the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 by the new schedule.
I recommend the new clause and the amendments to the House.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: When and how did the need for this provision come to light? Who recommended the change?

Mr. Maclean: The need for the new provision came to my attention within the last two weeks. I am not sure when it came to official attention. The advice of officials was that this was the best and most appropriate way of making the changes. If I had more information, I should happily give it to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is appropriate that a matter of such complexity should be brought before the House in this manner, I disagree. This is not a suitable way to legislate. We have had too many experiences of bad legislation in this field being passed without proper consultation or publication of the


Government's intentions. On the face of it, what the Minister has said seems reasonable, but it is quite clear that he has no idea of the background to this proposal. Perhaps the Members of another place will want to look at the matter more closely.

Mr. Maclean: The amendment does not make any great or fundamental change. We already have complex law dealing with the reporting obligations of all those employed in the field of financial services. Here, we are applying the law to Crown servants, and making the necessary changes with regard to supervisory organisations.
I spoke in greater detail than usual because I wanted the House to be fully informed of the provision's effects. The fact that I spoke in such detail does not necessarily mean that this is a whole new area of law, or that we are introducing a new concept that was not considered by the Standing Committee in the context of other aspects of the Bill or, previously, by the House.

Mr. Michael: The Minister ought not to be too defensive about these issues. He will recall that the Standing Committee dealt with a number of similar points. These are not matters in respect of which the parties divide, so we had a sensible discussion. I agree that it is necessary to get the law right and to ensure that it works. In that sense, if the Minister is responding to comments that have been made, we are reassured to some extent.
However, we need to ensure that we do not create another complication and other problems. For instance, later amendments take up points that I made in Committee. I refer to the need to ensure that legal advisers working in other capacities are not exempt when they act in their non-legal capacity. I am glad that the Minister has responded by introducing amendments with which we shall deal later. I hope that he does not feel that he must defend every line of late amendments. He ought to ensure that the short time available to both Houses is used to secure practicality and to make things absolutely right.

Mr. Maclean: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. During my time in Parliament, I have never before been accused of being too defensive, but I am grateful to him for defending me for the second time, the first being in Committee. Clearly, he cannot drop his past profession; he has defended me without my even requesting a legal aid solicitor.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES AND NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCES: CODE OF PRACTICE

'. The Secretary of State shall produce a Code of Practice regarding appropriate liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities regarding the most effective use of non-custodial sentences and other measures for the prevention of crime and reoffending.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 11, in the Title, line 21, after 'drugs', insert
'to make further provision with regard to disposals.'.

Mr. Michael: Before I speak to new clause 1, may I offer a personal word of explanation? I am sure that the Minister did not intend to insult me by suggesting that my past was so murky as to have been in the legal profession. I should make it clear that my professional background is that of journalist, youth and community worker and representative of the people, not as a—

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman was a magistrate.

Mr. Michael: The Minister was referring to my period as a magistrate; I take that as a compliment.
New clause 1 would fill a major gap in Britain's system for tackling crime. It would put right something which is wrong. I remind the House that this is the second Criminal Justice Bill in recent years which has failed to deal with the real problem facing communities and individuals across the country—and, indeed, the police on our streets. That real and urgent problem is the enormous rise in crime, which the Government have failed to tackle.
Crime and its prevention are matters of enormous concern to everyone today. In 1992, a staggering 5,594,416 offences were recorded by the police. That figure represents an increase of 121 per cent. on the figures for 1979 when the Conservative party came to power. It includes an increase of 324 per cent. in robbery, an increase of 149 per cent. in burglary and an increase of 162 per cent. in car crime compared with the 1979 figures.
That is an appalling record, by any definition. The actuality of crime on the ground is far worse than the figures suggest, because we know that only about one third or one quarter of offences that are committed arc reported to and recorded by the police. In other words, about 20 million crimes are being committed each year.
4.45 pm
The reality behind the statistics is grim: women and the elderly are afraid to go out at night, and the fear of crime affects the quality of life of many people. Surveys of local concerns put crime at or near the top nearly every time. In such circumstances, the Government should be launching a comprehensive policy to fight crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the shadow Home Secretary, said pointedly yesterday. They should be spearheading a strategy to reduce the level of crime in society.
The elements of that strategy are quite clear if one listens to the advice of those with experience of crime and crime prevention. There is a remarkable degree of consensus on how to tackle crime locally. It involves a partnership between the police, the local authority, local residents, local business and local statutory agencies, as well as voluntary organisations to analyse crime patterns in any given locality and then to develop a package of measures to tackle the problem.
The Government frequently pay lip service to that concept. Indeed, the press release machine at the Home Office works overtime, using some of the words that I shall use in my speech. However, the Government have consistently failed to develop a mechanism to ensure that such a partnership materialises on the ground.
The Government have a project mentality on crime prevention, which is perfectly exemplified by the safer


cities project. Twenty projects were set up and proved successful, but they will now have their funding withdrawn as the Government move on to another 20 cities, which will receive vastly reduced funding for the same work. The projects have proved successful, but they are shorttermism of the worst type. We do not need endless projects; we need a national approach and a national plan for tackling crime.
The new clause would provide a mechanism for liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities to reduce crime and reduce reoffending. It deals not only with discussions on effective non-custodial sentences but with early informal intervention when young people start to go off the rails—and, my goodness, that certainly needs to be done with a greater sense of urgency and with greater Government support. I refer to, for example, the informal advice and help which can follow a caution, and bail support and enforcement, which we shall discuss. It is vital that steps are taken at that stage to stop reoffending.
I must point out to the Minister and to the House the degree of attrition in the criminal justice system. If one takes the figure of 100 to represent the number of crimes committed and then considers the number recorded before reaching the number of crimes that are before the courts and in which sentences are passed, one gets as low as 2 per cent.
Only 2 per cent. of offenders end up being sentenced in court. That figure is deteriorating—it is down from 3 per cent. last year, according to the Home Office's own figures and reports. The figures underline the need to consider not only what happens in court—sentences and punishment—but what happens in the community where most crime occurs.
It maddens me to hear the Home Secretary and junior Ministers talk about partnership, because they clearly do not believe in a partnership approach. If they do, the litmus test will be the vote on the new clause. The litmus test of the Government's sincerity will be their acceptance and support of new clause 1. I hope that they will support it, but I shall be surprised if they do.
The Morgan report was published in August 1991. It was followed by delay and procrastination. Labour Members, understanding the importance of preventing and reducing crime, continually demanded that the Government give their response to the report.
In December 1922, the then Home Secretary smuggled out his response, which was to reject "Safer Communities". I remind the House that that report is subtitled "The Local Delivery of Crime Prevention through the Partnership Approach". Ministers pay lip service to that approach, which is what the new clause is all about.
The Morgan report's recommendations are directly relevant to the new clause. The report stated:
The lack of a clear statutory responsibility for local government to play its part fully in crime prevention has inhibited progress
in reducing crime. It continues:
There is confusion at local level about the various centrally funded schemes with a crime prevention element, and concern about potential overlap and duplication of effort".
I confirm that that is the case, and it is, if anything, getting worse as time goes on.
The Morgan report then lists the advantages of local authority involvement. The local authority is responsible for so many services which impinge on crime prevention.
It provides permanency and continuity, and it provides for the legitimate and productive involvement of local people. The report therefore concludes:
Local authorities working with the police should have clear statutory responsibility for the development and stimulation of community safety and crime prevention programmes, and for progressing at local level a multi-agency approach to crime prevention.
Sadly, that approach was rejected.
Although Ministers pay lip service to the concept of local partnership whenever they visit a project or local area and see success on the ground through the voluntary co-operation of agencies or a little seed money, they do not seek, and have not sought, to put in place the necessary nationwide framework to support and encourage the effectiveness of local initiatives. That is what the new clause seeks to provoke them into doing.
The new clause does not go all the way, but it would provide a starting point for effective crime prevention work. In the longer term, I hope that the modest proposal will in due course be followed by a statutory duty on local authorities. The then Home Secretary failed the litmus test in December 1992, when he rejected the Morgan report. Will the Minister fail today? Is the present Home Secretary serious about dealing with crime? The code of practice which we propose would enable him to implement a clear Labour policy. That might upset him, but it would not upset victims throughout the country who suffer because of lack of that type of policy. Nor would it upset the police, who see the value of it. It would certainly not upset local authorities, who have been crying out for it.
That clear Labour policy says, in effect, that the Government should take responsibility for supporting a new dynamic partnership between the police, the local authorities and the community to tackle at a local level, where most crime takes place. The Minister must heed the warnings that have been flooding in from experts on every side in recent years. I refer to statements by experts that have led to headlines speaking of a
nightmare scenario warning over inner cities.
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis said recently that, unless the Government took action to stem developments today, the police would be armed as a matter of course within 10 or 20 years. Such statements have led to headlines about a
choice of gun law or regeneration.
The partnership approach that we seek has support locally in many communities. Local Labour councillors have increasingly sought to work with the police. The police have increasingly recognised the value of working closer with local authorities. We must make it clear that the police, local authorities and local communities are on the same side in the fight against crime. By dragging their feet, the Government are failing to provide the framework and structure to allow that to develop.
The new clause also calls on the Government to enable those local partnerships to make proper and effective use of non-custodial sentences. There are offenders for whom prison or secure accommodation at a younger age is the only option. But there are two problems. The first is that the right ones often do not seem to reach that point quickly enough, and serious concern is again being voiced about the work of the Crown Prosecution Service and its failure to prosecute effectively and successfully. Some hon. Members heard that very complaint today from representatives of the Police Federation.
The second is that the lack of early intervention and a failure to achieve the full potential and effectiveness of community-based sentences leads to people returning after committing ever more serious offences.
If simple common sense does not dictate the need for a new initiative to make community-based sentences effective, we must consider the costs of imprisonment. Recent estimates—they have no doubt increased since they were prepared—put the cost at £386 per week per man in prison and £563 per week per woman. The figures are far higher for young offenders.
Save for those for whom there is no alternative, there should be a way of using the money more effectively. Making community-based sentences more effective, more challenging and more stringent must be good sense, and the Government should give that their full support.
Many other aspects should be tied in with the initiative proposed in the new clause, one being to make cautioning more effective. There is concern that, after the first caution, it becomes of less meaning to some youngsters. The Government could do something about that, by accepting some of the practical suggestions that my hon. Friends and I made in Committee.
In relation to drugs—a major aspect of the Bill—cautioning-plus is needed for those who are cautioned for the possession of a small quantity of drugs. Immediate counselling is vital, as has been shown in experiments in south Wales. It is clear from those experiments that, in the normal course of events, many people starting to take drugs are not brought to the attention of voluntary organisations until a late stage.
Let us adopt a common-sense approach to the problem. We must make the system effective, by cutting crime and giving new confidence to the police, to the community in general and to every individual. That is the agenda of the Opposition, which we address in the new clause.
My hon. Friends and I support the Government strongly in dealing with drug trafficking, just as we support them in the other issues that appeared in the Bill when it was first presented to us and in some of the provisions that have been added since, such as those relating to terrorism. But we have made it clear that what the Government propose is not enough. Crime must be tackled now, in the community, where most of it is committed.
The new clause would enable the Government to enhance that initiative and to do a little to change the Conservative party's well-deserved image of being soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. In that connection, Conservative Members may now be embarrassed about the fact that, on 1 June 1993, the Home Secretary stated in a departmental press release:
It is time we changed the 'its-nothing-to-do-with-me' attitude which has crept into our communities. Crime is everyone's concern. We must involve the whole community in working with the police and the courts to face up to this challenge.
I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to put his money where his mouth is. We are beginning to believe that every incoming Conservative Minister receives an injection which enables him to grind out identikit phrases, criticisms of others and appeals for partnership.
We need to rewrite what the Home Secretary said on 1 June. He should have said, "It is time we changed the 'it's-nothing-to-do-with-me' attitude which has crept into the present Government. Crime must be the concern of

every Minister. The Government will back the whole community in working with the police and local authorities to face up to the challenge."
Had he said that, he would have been saying something sensible about the need to tackle and reduce crime. But having made such a statement, he would then have had to act on it. The way for the Government to show that they are serious in wanting to do that is for them to accept our new clause, which represents the litmus test of the Government's seriousness in wanting to tackle crime.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I support the new clause. The Morgan report showed that we must have a partnership in the community with the police and local authorities if we are to achieve what we desperately need, which is to fight back against crime. Unfortunately, the Government have not been prepared to respond as positively to that need as we would have liked.
The Government seem not to appreciate that every individual in the land who pays taxes or buys goods in the shops, who is insured against anything or who pays charges to enter any public building, is likely to be paying towards the massive cost of the increasing crime rate in Britain.
We need more policing and more effective sentencing, and we must ensure that the criminal justice system operates more effectively, but we must also ensure that the whole community is involved in the fight against crime. Only by that means shall we succeed.
Since the Conservatives came to power in 1979, when they claimed that they would be tough on law and order and would reduce the crime rate, crime in my county of Warwickshire has increased enormously. The rate of car thefts and household burglaries has not trebled but quadrupled, and it is clear——

Mr. Shersby: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been paying close attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I understood that the new clause was concerned with the establishment of a code of practice. We seem to be debating the whole question of criminal justice. Is that in order?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I had presumed that the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) was giving some background in order to put forward his views in favour of the new clause, but it is always important that the background does not become the foreground.

Mr. O'Brien: I am conscious of what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker. The new clause refers to local authorities. I am seeking to demonstrate the need for the whole community to work together, as the new clause suggests, with the police to ensure that crime is reduced and that crime prevention is enhanced. That is really what the new clause is all about.
5 pm
Since 1979, in my county of Warwickshire, car theft and burglary have quadrupled. Crime in Warwickshire has risen from 13,000 offences in 1979 to 45,000 in 1992. No doubt the 1993 figures will also show an increase. Rural areas in particular would benefit from such a new clause and a code of practice. In rural areas there is fear about the increasing crime rate. That fear is not readily recognised by the media. In the village of Arley in my constituency, we recently had severe problems with increasing crime. Various meetings have had to be held, bringing together


not only the police, myself and the local authorities but the whole community in the effort that the new clause envisages. Various elements of the community understand the need to work together to ensure that a fight back against crime is conducted by a united community.
The public will not be deceived by calls for longer sentences or for more prisons to be built if the resources to implement what we are calling for in the new clause and in our policy are not forthcoming from the Treasury. The real fight back against crime requires that we put more funding into police forces in particular. If the police and the local community are to have a code of practice, that code of practice must include a police force which is able to play its full part in the fight back against crime and resources must be made available for it.
We know that the Government are not prepared to put resources into increasing the number of full-time police officers. We know that the Government propose that there should be a freeeze on spending on future police recruitment over the next few years. That will not enable the police to fulfil the role that we envisage in the new clause.
It is essential that the police are provided with resources to do what the local community wants, and the local community wants more police officers on the beat, dealing with crime in the community. Therefore, the community needs a Government who are prepared to back the police and provide the necessary resources for more police officers, for more equipment to be provided, and for local communities to be able to understand that they have the protection that they so desperately need and demand.
Unfortunately, the Government have decided that they will put their restrictions on spending before the fight back against crime. They do not seem to accept that we lose one way or the other. We lose if we do not put money into the fight back against crime. The community will end up having to spend more money on charges, insurance, prisons, and on providing resources to deal with the end result of crime rather than trying to deal with the crime problem at the start, as the new clause envisages, by encouraging the community and the police to work together and by providing the necessary resources to enable that to be done.
The Government are deluding themselves or providing themselves with a false economy by trying to restrict spending, whereas spending is very much needed——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going rather wide of the new clause, which incidentally makes no reference to communities.

Mr. O'Brien: It certainly refers to local authorities. I am trying to suggest that local authorities and communities are synonymous, but perhaps I am wrong to do so. I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Local authorities provide many of the facilities which support local communities, such as youth services and council housing, but much of the provision has been reduced by the Government's policies. We seek to ensure that we establish the necessary liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities. That liaison must be backed up by resources and provision for decent housing, job creation and, most important, youth services.
Over the past six years, the Home Affairs Select Committee, of which I am a member, has been investigating increasing juvenile crime. In my county we

have seen severe cuts in the youth service. If the police, local authorities and the courts are to have the liaison that will ensure effective crime reduction and crime prevention policies, we need to put resources into youth services, effective housing and job creation. If we undermine that community provision and the community values upon which that provision is based, crime will fester and many of our young people will be alienated.
The writer Alan Massie once said:
A civilisation in decline digs its grave with relentless consistency. The hallmark of such a decline is the selfish ego and a lack of concern and caring about community values.
The new clause is aimed at promoting those values and that co-ordination. The undermining of community values, community provision and community support has led to many of our young people living in an alienated sub-culture. Thankfully, few of them are turning to crime. They are told by the Government that they are supposed to stand on their own two feet without being given any opportunity to do so through the provision of accommodation, jobs, or any of the—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant of the hon. Gentleman. He must not use this new clause, which, after all, advocates a code of practice, to make a general statement about the ills of the country.

Mr. O'Brien: The code of practice is part of the policy which is needed to provide back-up—community support—for what the Labour party calls its policy of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. That phrase can be repeated time and again because it sums up what is needed in this country. A code of practice would embody what we want in terms of provisions to be tough on the causes of crime. It would emphasise that we cannot allow the individualism and lack of community spirit that the Government have allowed to develop to undermine the fight back against crime.
We on this side of the House are prepared to put our words and our support behind the need for a tougher policy of that kind, but we would also be prepared to put the resources behind it. The code of practice suggested in this new clause is the start of the basis of a policy of bringing together the police, the community and local authorities, and ensuring that the Morgan report is implemented, as it should have been implemented, by the Government, and ensuring also that there is recognition of the appalling problems which exist in my constituency and my county and are not being addressed by the Government. I call upon the House to support the new clause.

Mr. Shersby: This is an interesting new clause. The proposal has been discussed by the Police Federation from time to time. It has also come up in the Home Affairs Select Committee, and there has been a good deal of debate about the need for some sort of code of practice over the past couple of years.
This new clause, which calls upon my right hon. and learned Friend to produce a code of practice, is designed, it appears, to provide liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities concerning the use of non-custodial sentences, and other measures for the prevention of crime and reoffending. I wish to talk about some of those other measures, as well as the code of practice referred to specifically in the new clause.


First, there is a need for more secure accommodation for juvenile offenders—a matter of great concern to local authorities. Unhappily, we do not have enough such accommodation in this country. That is a matter to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruchcliffe (Mr. Clarke) addressed his mind when he made his announcement a month or two ago about the new secure accommodation order that he was contemplating.
However, every hon. Member knows that there are great difficulties in finding suitable secure accommodation for juvenile offenders. It therefore behoves all local authorities to take very careful account of this, because it is one of the other measures that need to be addressed.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman said that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) addressed his mind to these matters. I do not think that he did. It was his predecessor, well over two years ago, who addressed his mind to the need for secure accommodation. Since that date, not one extra place has been provided—partly, I think, owing to the conflict between the Home Office and other Government Departments. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a scandal that, after that length of time, the problem to which he has pointed, and on which I agree with him, has not been addressed?

Mr. Shersby: I certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Two or three previous Home Secretaries have had representations from me on behalf of the police, as has the Secretary of State for Health. This is an area which is divided between the Secretary of State for Health, who is responsible for juveniles and for providing additional secure accommodation for youngsters who cannot be sent to prison, and the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the generality of secure accommodation.
My point—I do not make it in a party political spirit—is that there are some local authorities in this country who are not very keen on providing secure accommodation, whereas it is in the national interest that every local authority should address itself to the problem.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) made some comments about the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute. This is a matter of considerable interest at the present time to magistrates courts in this country, and not least to the Uxbridge magistrates court, which has lobbied me recently about the lack of work and is puzzled by the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service is apparently not prosecuting as vigorously as it might. I hope that my hon. Friend, when he replies, will say a word or two about that.
We have had a fairly wide-ranging debate on this new clause, and I do not intend to go down the same road, but I want to pick up some of the points that have been made.
5.15 pm
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth quoted the remarks of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the carrying of firearms by police officers in 10 years' time. I want to place it on record that the Police Federation of England and Wales is strongly opposed to the carrying of firearms. That is why it welcomes very much indeed the prompt action taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in authorising trials of the side-handled baton and other

equipment which will enable police officers to defend themselves and to provide local communities and local authorities with the kind of policing that they require to deal with crime in 1993.
The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) referred to the problem of crime in rural areas. Local authorities, and indeed the local police, have a very considerable problem, because there are often only two police officers on duty in a rural area. If they suddenly receive a large visitation of individuals from an urban area, they may find themselves considerably extended in dealing with it.
The new clause asks the Government to produce a code of practice that would involve the courts, the police and the local authorities in a combined effort. I have some sympathy with that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to tell the House what steps the Government intend to take to involve local people more widely.
My own feeling is that the police and community consultative councils have a valuable role to play in this process. I attend my local police and community consultative council whenever I am able to get away from the House—which has not been very often during the past year—and I believe that these councils play the kind of role that the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North and his hon. Friends have in mind. They are groups of individuals drawn from the local authority, chaired by a local man or woman, and attended by senior officers, to discuss local policing matters and the way to tackle crime in the area concerned.
Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced his proposals for the new police authorities. They have one very considerable benefit: they will give local police commanders very much more say in the way resources are deployed in future, working together with the police authorities. They will give them the power to decide how the money allocated by the Home Office will be spent—whether on more manpower, or on a combination of manpower and equipment, and all the other things that the police need in order to do their job.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have something constructive to say on this new clause. It is an idea that has been mooted in the House by hon. Members on both sides, as well as in the Select Committee, over the past year, and I believe that it deserves serious consideration.

Mr. Maclean: I listened to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) with growing interest, and then amazement, as he introduced the new clause. I thought for a moment that I had perhaps been transported to Thursday's wide-ranging debate on all aspects of law and order, because we heard recounted—to borrow a phrase from you, Madam Deputy Speaker—all the ills of society. A strong impression was given that this new and wonderful Labour party clause would cure those ills.

Mr. Michael: I hope that, in responding, the Minister will take seriously what we said at the beginning, which was that the new clause would be merely a start. It is the best that we can get into the geography of the Bill, which, as the Minister knows, limits the possibility of putting amendments forward. It is therefore a starting point—not


the solution to all the problems. I hope that the Minister will address it with that in mind and in the positive and helpful spirit in which the motion was moved.

Mr. Maclean: I shall address myself to the exact contents of the new clause but, in coming to that, I shall also attempt to deal with some of the wide-ranging issues on which Opposition Members touched and on which, in some cases, Madam Deputy Speaker, they were pulled up by you for wandering far and wide.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was trying to wear a cloak of the party that has suddenly discovered in the opinion polls that the public are worried about crime. In trying to wear the cloak of being tough on crime, the hon. Gentleman urged tougher community sentences. The Government have delivered those. He urged that we look at cautioning-plus. I said last week in Committee that I was attracted to that concept and that I wanted to see wider use of it.
The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. M. O'Brien) made pleas about housing and jobs. I thought that I must be missing something and I turned to see what this powerful new clause, which was going to lead the fight back against crime, was going to do. The new clause would introduce a code of practice. The agencies concerned, the courts, the police and the local authorities, would be obliged to comply with a prescribed Labour party code of practice, lifted from its manifesto, in pursuing their joint considerations in the use of non-custodial sentences.
I accept that that is perhaps just the start of that fight back against crime. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has assured me that the code of practice is just the start, and that the Labour party wants there to be a statutory duty. If the Labour party wants to begin the fight back against crime, I suggest that the starting point should have been some time ago.
Perhaps it should have been when the Labour party voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—that is a funny fight back. Perhaps it should have been when the Labour party voted against the Public Order Act 1986—that is an odd way to fight back. Perhaps it should have been when the Labour party voted against the Criminal Justice Acts of 1988 and 1991. The fight back that the Labour party now wants to conduct against crime has been not a fight back against crime but a fight against every single measure that the Government have introduced to crack down harder on crime and criminals.
The Labour party also said that it wanted to involve the whole community. That makes sense, but I do not see how the whole community can be involved, participating in a partnership, by ordering them to comply with a code of practice. The Government recognise the need for good liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities. We have been active in promoting good practice and encouraging the setting up of many liaison structures.
Following the Woolf report, 24 area committees were set up, which bring together under the chairmanship of a resident judge senior representatives of the various agencies involved in the criminal justice system. Those committees firmly placed the emphasis on the promotion of better understanding, better co-operation and co-ordination within the system. They held their first meeting in the autumn and need time to develop further. The Government would not wish to see those arrangements disturbed at such an early stage in their development.
The Government also recognise the need to spread best practice on crime prevention to local practitioners. As part of the new phase in the Government's crime prevention strategy announced in January, we have commissioned Crime Concern, the independent crime prevention organisation, to produce a good practice guide. The guide will provide clear, practical advice on what works in crime prevention and how to make it work, as well as guidance on working in partnership. It will be distributed widely to local practitioners when it becomes available later this year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) will accept that that might satisfy the Police Federation's requests.

Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend's announcement that he is to commission Crime Concern will be welcomed by the Police Federation, and I hope that it will be most welcome to many hon. Members who have sympathy with some of the concepts that we have debated. I congratulate him on making that important statement.

Mr. Maclean: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I hope that the House will accept that a practical, best practice guide produced by Crime Concern may be better than lifting something from the Labour party manifesto, as I was urged to do.
The Government regard it as important to ensure that there are more local discussions so that local mechanisms are designed and developed to meet local needs. Discussions on the implementation of community penalties continue to take place in local liaison groups, such as court user groups and probation liaison committees, as appropriate to meet their local needs.
A code of practice produced by the Secretary of State which would impose a single solution throughout the country would not, in my view, be desirable. The Government accept the need for good liaison between the police, local authorities and other local agencies on crime prevention so that co-ordinated efforts are made to make towns and cities safer for the people who live and work in them. The Government applaud the police and community consultative councils, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge.
Following guidance issued by the Home Office in 1990, taking forward the partnership approach to crime prevention, an increasing number of local authorities are developing their own crime prevention and community safety strategies in consultation with the police and others. Local strategies provide a framework for concerted action and for carrying forward the multi-agency approach to tackling local crime problems. The Government wholeheartedly welcome those developments at local level.

Mr. Shersby: Has the London borough of Lambeth agreed to participate in those measures?

Mr. Maclean: The honest answer is that I do not know. However, I should be very surprised if it had. I am willing to let the Opposition inform me if Lambeth council is participating in those measures. I assume that that council has so many internal problems with law and order that such measures are not high up on its agenda.
The Opposition commented on resources. If people believed the Opposition, they would be led to believe that resources for all aspects of the criminal justice system were in decline. Between 1979 and 1992—the period of office of this Government—resources for the criminal justice


system increased by 105 per cent. in real terms, above the level of inflation. That is a considerable amount of resources for all aspects of law and order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge raised a query about the Crown Prosecution Service. There has been some public concern recently, expressed by some bodies, about the number of cases that were not followed through to prosecution. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be considering the matter, with my colleagues, and we will want to discuss it with the Crown Prosecution Service in due course.
The Government are not convinced that the code of practice suggested by the Opposition for local government, the police and others in the area of crime prevention is necessary, desirable or would do any good. Local crime problems essentially require local solutions. A code of practice written by the Secretary of State would be prescriptive and would not allow for flexible, local responses. I urge the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to withdraw the motion and I urge my hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Boateng: The Opposition have no intention of withdrawing the motion; on the contrary, we intend to push it to its very limit. For the Minister to have the nerve to point to a Labour local authority as having internal problems on law and order, when his Government are rotten with problems on law and order, is a diabolical liberty. He ought to address the Government's problem of the way in which the general public perceive their competence on law and order. The Government's competence on law and order, as on so much else, stands at an all-time low. It is to the Labour party that the country looks for a lead on law and order.

Mr. Maclean: Try to keep a straight face.

Mr. Boateng: The Minister asked me to keep a straight face. It is disturbing that we have no problem in keeping a straight face on the issue of law and order because we recognise that outside, in the big wide world, there is a problem about safety and security in communities.
Out there, in the big wide world, the general public thirst for and desire Ministers to give a lead. The general public want the Home Secretary to be prepared to put his authority behind a code of practice and to give that code of practice the force of statute. The general public look to the Government to give a lead. The Conservative Government and the Conservative party have failed time and time again to give such a lead.
5.30 pm
This small new clause would be a modest start for this notoriously reluctant Government. The Government should embark on the proposals in it as a response to the public's perception of their incompetence and to the public's demand that they be seen to take a lead. That is all that we seek through the new clause. We ask that the Home Secretary take on board the need for a code of practice and recognise the appropriateness of liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities to make the most effective use of non-custodial sentences and other measures for the prevention of crime and offending.
The new clause emphasises effectiveness because there is a widely felt and increasingly loudly expressed concern

out there. I hope that the Minister will listen to the word that is coming back to the House from the communities most affected by crime. There is a widely held belief that the non-custodial option is not always utilised as effectively as possible.
The public want the reassurance that there are no soft options for those convicted of criminal offences. They want the reassurance that, when we talk about a non-custodial sentence, we mean something that tackles the issue of recidivism. Non-custodial sentences should also address the legitimate public demand for punishment and retribution. There is absolutely no reason why it should not be possible to deal with all those elements of the public's concern by way of a non-custodial sentence.
The only way to achieve that aim is to begin to address the content of a non-custodial sentence. Our concern, which is shared by others, is that, if local resources are not co-ordinated, if local authorities, social services, the probation service and the courts do not work in tandem, the quality of the content of non-custodial sentences will be inferior, will not provide a rigorous and disciplined framework for sentences and will not bear down on the dangers of recidivism—of slipping back into the criminal culture that led to the offending in the first place.
Through the new clause, we ask for the force of statute to be given to a code of practice issued by the Home Secretary, which requires appropriate liaison between the courts, the police and the local authorities. The code of practice should say, "You must talk to each other. You must talk to the Government about how the will and the resources will be applied to give the non-custodial option teeth and relevance." We are determined that noncustodial sentences should not be regarded as a soft option. They should have teeth and relevance, and they should have an impact on offenders to ensure that the opportunities for and likelihood of recidivism are reduced.
The element of returning to society something that one has taken away from it by one's criminal action must be incorporated in the non-custodial option. I have nothing against Home Office projects. However, the important thing about projects is that they should be a pilot, a start and a model for something that is then to be extended. What we find so depressing is that, although good projects come out of Home Office initiatives and flower briefly, like a desert bloom, they are gone until the next thunderstorm.
That should not be the way in which we proceed. Thought should be given to the most effective manner in which to ensure that the non-custodial option has bite. The product of that thought, of experimentation and of the models tried in the course of projects should inform and direct the impact of a code of practice. That is a legitimate call for us to make through the new clause. It should not be sneered at or discounted, as the Minister has done this evening.
I welcome the good practice guide. If the new clause has led to the announcement of the good practice guide, that is all to the good. However, that is no substitute for a code of practice. Good practice needs to begin at home. I make no apology for giving hon. Members a little homily about where they can begin in terms of good practice. I notice the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) in an unaccustomed seat at an unusual time of the afternoon.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): An unaccustomed suit?

Mr. Boateng: Not "suit"; I said "seat". The suit, I fear, is of a quality and nature to which we are only too well accustomed. It is good to see the hon. Gentleman in his seat. He will know that the problems of Crawley arc not very different from the problems of similar towns throughout the land in terms of law and order and the safety and security of the inhabitants.
Will the Government begin to take on board some good practice? Would it not be good practice to implement locally based crime prevention policies? Would it not be good practice for there to be a statutory requirement for local authorities, backed up by proper resourcing, to have such policies implemented?
Would it not be good practice for the youth service to be put on a statutory footing? Would it not be good news if the Minister and his colleagues were prepared to announce their backing for the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) in that regard? I declare an interest as a vice-president of the London Association of Youth Clubs. Would that not respond to the call from those concerned with youth provision throughout the country for just such a measure, which would provide a structure for local youth work? That in turn would provide security for the valuable work being done by youth clubs and organisations. We could do with some good practice from the Governmnent in that regard.
Would it not be a good idea if the Government buried their obsessive dislike of local authorities and recognised, in a code of practice of this sort, the valuable role that local authorities play in real partnership with others? Would it not be good practice if the Government sponsored important and valuable initiatives, instead of laying down strictures for local businesses? Would not it be good practice if the Government said to local businesses, "We value and appreciate the sponsorship that we are asking you to give, and that you are giving as best you can in these recession-ridden times, to local initiatives, but we will play our part, too. We will enter a partnership with you and local authorities in undertaking crime prevention on the ground"?
In terms of my local authority, I cannot be alone in having a chamber of commerce that takes crime prevention seriously, especially in the major shopping centres at Wembley and Harlesden. That can be replicated in the constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is only a limited amount of money that local businesses are capable of generating in that regard. They are happy to take a leadership role, but they need to know that there is some hope that the Home Office will join them and the police in supplementing the resources that are available.
The work of voluntary organisations is valuable and much needed. The voluntary ethic has a vital role to play in the battle against crime and creating safe and secure communities. However, it also requires a framework, and new clause 1 provides just that. The
other measures for the prevention of crime and reoffending
in new clause 1 relate to the partnership that can be built between local authorities, the police, the courts and voluntary organisations when there is the will to ensure that there is a way to do so. A code of practice would bring that about.
Obviously, the role of the courts is important. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to that role and the limitation that is inevitably placed on the courts in the implementation of the aims and objectives of

the Bill and the proposed working of new clause 1. At present, they make disposals only with regard to offenders who are brought before them. That matter was touched on by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who expressed a concern that is widely held by the police, and by my hon. Friends the Members for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
Such lamentable circumstances exist up and down the country. Time and time again, the lists for the Crown court and the magistrates court have vacant spaces; at the same time, the perception of those who serve as magistrates and those who serve on juries up and down the country is that the level of crime in their communities is increasing. The court lists have never had more vacant spaces or been shorter than they are at present.
5.45 pm
We are entitled to ask why. We will continue to ask that question at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere until we get a satisfactory answer. Why does such a level of crime exist? Given the public perception and fear of crime that exist at present, vacant spaces in the lists of the magistrates court and the Crown court and disposals that are meeting the needs and concerns of society, why are so few cases being brought before the courts and so few criminals emerging at the end of the criminal justice system? Why do Ministers fail time and time again to provide any answer on that?
We hear vague mutterings about paperwork. Paperwork is a problem. However, it is important that the police are not burdened with unnecessary paperwork. That matter must be addressed. From time to time, cautioning is mentioned. Rightly and properly, the police are increasingly using the cautioning mechanism. However, that does not account for the lack of work that is currently in the magistrates court and the Crown court.
Ministers should be asking themselves and the Crown prosecutor why that is happening. What is the explanation for the lack of work currently before the courts? In Committee and on the Floor of the House, the answer that we received from Conservative Members was, "None." It may be that we will receive some response from the Government today. If and when we receive such a response, that may help the House to adopt policies that ensure that current levels of crime are borne down and the morale of the police is boosted. At present, morale is adversely affected because the police apprehend offenders and bring their force to bear on offending, only to find that the Crown Prosecution Service, for whatever reason, does not carry cases through.
The code of practice provided for in new clause 1 would bring all the elements of the criminal justice system—the courts, the police and the local authorities—together in an appropriate liaison, so that problems on the ground could be more readily identified and the necessary action taken to alleviate them.
This has been a useful debate. We have addressed in some detail the proposals of, admittedly, a modest new clause. The way in which the Government have approached the new clause—dismissing it out of hand and failing to recognise its wisdom or to move in any way towards it—is a cause of considerable disappointment. However, it is par for the course for a Government who have witnessed, since coming into office, a 120 per cent. increase in offences involving violence against the person; a 149 per cent. increase in burglaries; a 162 per cent.


increase in vehicle crime; a 182 per cent. increase in criminal damage offences; and a 324 per cent. increase in the incidence of robbery.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the crime rate has been increasing, the police have spent an increasing amount of time in court waiting rooms, waiting to give evidence which is often never heard? Surely that should be the subject of liaison between the courts and the police. The chief constable of Strathclyde has estimated that, on some day shifts, up to 30 per cent. of police officers are sitting in court waiting rooms.

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend has drawn on his experience in Glasgow to make a useful point, which identifies precisely the sort of issue that should be addressed by a code of practice.
The issue of liaison between the police and the courts should be addressed. No doubt my hon. Friend will be able to draw on his experience of the sessional court in Paisley to tell us how the local police service is informed about the state of the court lists.
I know of two recent cases that were listed for trial in the same court at 10.30 in the morning. When both cases were effective, the officers required to give evidence in the second case were obliged to hang around in the lobby of the court—while all sorts of mischief may have been going on in their local manor—until their case was called. That happens time and again.

Mr. McMaster: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if everyone were given the same appointment time of 10.30 in the morning under the health service charter, that would not be acceptable to the Government? Surely practical and sensible steps could be taken to establish regular liaison between the prosecution service and the police. Would not this code of practice ensure that the best practice was always followed?

Mr. Boateng: I wish that my hon. Friend's expertise had been available when we considered the contents of the code of practice. I hope that any code of practice promulgated under the new clause will contain a little more bite, and be a little more realistic, than the discredited citizens charter. It reached its nadir when it was——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted down that path. What he is now discussing is far removed from the clause under consideration.

Mr. Boateng: I did say "nadir" not "Nadir". I recognise only too well, as the clock approaches 6 o'clock, the dangers of being drawn down that path.
Any code of practice arising from the acceptance of the new clause would be subject to the courts charter, and I hope that that charter will be given more substance.
A number of Conservative Members, who represent the shires and small towns, are no doubt here because of their interest in this subject, and a desire to reassure their constituents of their concern for law and order. Such hon. Members will no doubt be interested to hear how the small towns and shire counties compare with other areas in respect of the increase in crime. The number of recorded burglaries in the shires since 1979 makes salutary reading.
In Staffordshire, for example, the number of burglaries committed has increased by 302 per cent.——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will recall that his hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) went down that road, and that I suggested that it was wide of the clause. What is applicable to Back Benchers is applicable to those on the Front Bench.

Mr. Boateng: Quite so, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regard myself as suitably chastened.
How will such crime be addressed under the new clause? our approach to crime prevention does not eschew the nuts and bolts of the issue. Local authorities have a role to play in ensuring that the police—and the expertise they have available through the nuts and bolts of crime prevention measures—have access to those areas most severely affected by burglaries.
Local authority premises can be used to disseminate information relating to crime prevention; local authority dust carts can be used to display information about the basic steps that can be taken by people to secure their own homes. It is very simple stuff, but it is important to get the message home and to use all the resources that are available to local authorities for that purpose.
6 pm
During this debate, we have covered fully the nuts and bolts of crime prevention. We have demonstrated only too clearly the importance of ensuring that there is in place a code of practice bringing together local authorities, the police and the courts in an effective partnership against crime. That is the way forward to counteract recidivism and ensure that the importance of bearing down effectively on crime always remains at the forefront of the minds of the courts and those concerned with the criminal justice system.'

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 278.

Division No. 310]
[6.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Burden, Richard


Adams, Mrs Irene
Byers, Stephen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caborn, Richard


Allen, Graham
Callaghan, Jim


Alton, David
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Armstrong, Hilary
Cann, Jamie


Ashton, Joe
Chisholm, Malcolm


Austin-Walker, John
Clapham, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Battle, John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bayley, Hugh
Clelland, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Coffey, Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, Andrew F.
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Corston, Ms Jean


Berry, Dr. Roger
Cousins, Jim


Betts, Clive
Cryer, Bob


Blair, Tony
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Blunkett, David
Dafis, Cynog


Boateng, Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Boyes, Roland
Darling, Alistair


Bradley, Keith
Davidson, Ian


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Denham, John






Dewar, Donald
McFall, John


Dixon, Don
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dobson, Frank
McLeish, Henry


Donohoe, Brian H.
Maclennan, Robert


Dowd, Jim
Madden, Max


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mahon, Alice


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mandelson, Peter


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Etherington, Bill
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maxton, John


Fatchett, Derek
Meacher, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Meale, Alan


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michael, Alun


Fisher, Mark
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Milburn, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Miller, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Morgan, Rhodri


Foulkes, George
Morley, Elliot


Fraser, John
Morris, Rt Hon A, (Wy'nshawe)


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Galbraith, Sam
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Abersvon)


Galloway, George
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gapes, Mike
Mudie, George


Garrett, John
Mullin, Chris


George, Bruce
Murphy, Paul


Gerrard, Neil
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Hara, Edward


Gordon, Mildred
Olner, William


Gould, Bryan
O'Neill, Martin


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Patchett, Terry


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pickthall, Colin


Grocott, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


Gunnell, John
Pope, Greg


Hain, Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hall, Mike
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hanson, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Prescott, John


Harvey, Nick
Primarolo, Dawn


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Henderson, Doug
Radice, Giles


Heppell, John
Randall, Stuart


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Raynsford, Nick


Hinchliffe, David
Rendel, David


Hoey, Kate
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Rogers, Allan


Hoyle, Doug
Rooker, Jeff


Hutton, John
Rooney, Terry


Illsley, Eric
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ingram, Adam
Rowlands, Ted


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Ruddock, Joan


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jamieson, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Janner, Greville
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Short, Clare


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Simpson, Alan


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Jowell, Tessa
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)
Snape, Peter


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Soley, Clive


Khabra, Piara S.
Spearing, Nigel


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Kirkwood, Archy
Steinberg, Gerry


Leighton, Ron
Stevenson, George


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Lewis, Terry
Straw, Jack


Livingstone, Ken
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Tipping, Paddy


Loyden, Eddie
Turner, Dennis


Lynne, Ms Liz
Tyler, Paul


McAllion, John
Vaz, Keith


McAvoy, Thomas
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McCartney, Ian
Wareing, Robert N





Watson, Mike
Wray, Jimmy


Wicks, Malcolm
Wright, Dr Tony


Wigley, Dafydd
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)



Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Gordon McMaster and


Wise, Audrey
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle


Worthington, Tony



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dover, Den


Aitken, Jonathan
Duncan, Alan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Eggar, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Elletson, Harold


Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Ashby, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evennett, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Faber, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fabricant, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fishburn, Dudley


Bates, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bendall, Vivian
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Body, Sir Richard
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Booth, Hartley
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garnier, Edward


Bowden, Andrew
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Budgen, Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burt, Alistair
Hague, William


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, Sir John


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Nick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawksley, Warren


Chapman, Sydney
Hayes, Jerry


Churchill, Mr
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hendry, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Day, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jessel, Toby


Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)






Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Legg, Barry
Sims, Roger


Leigh, Edward
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lidington, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, David
Stephen, Michael


Maginnis, Ken
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marland, Paul
Sumberg, David


Marlow, Tony
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mawhinney. Dr Brian
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thomason, Roy


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Milligan, Stephen
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mills, Iain
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thurnham, Peter


Moate, Sir Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Needham, Richard
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Trimble, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walden, George


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waterson, Nigel


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Whitney, Ray


Patten, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pickles, Eric
Wilkinson, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Willetts, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Richards, Rod
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Riddick, Graham



Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 2

VICTIMS OF DRUG-RELATED CRIME

'.—( 1) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay such grants, to such persons, as he considers

appropriate in connection with measures intended to assist the victims of drug-trafficking, drug-related crime or the misuse of drugs.

(2) Any such grant may be made subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may, with the agreement of the Treasury, see fit to impose.

(3) Payments under this section shall be made out of money provided by Parliament.'.—[ Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following: New clause 7—Alleged victims of relevant offences—
'.—In considering any application to withdraw a charge in favour of a lesser charge the court shall seek to be satisfied, where it considers appropriate, that a reasonable effort has been made to consult any alleged victim or victims of the said offence.'.
New clause 8—Alleged victims of relevant offences ( No. 2)——
'.—In considering any application to withdraw a charge of causing death by dangerous driving in favour of a lesser charge the court shall seek to be satisfied, where it considers appropriate, that a reasonable effort has been made to consult the relatives of the victim or victims of the said offence.'.
Amendment No. 12, in the title, line 21, after 'drugs', insert
'to make provision for consultations with victims of crime and the relatives of such victims where the prosecution proposes to withdraw a criminal charge in favour of a lesser charge.'.

Mr. Michael: The effect of the new clauses is summed up in our proposed amendment to the title of the Bill because it amends the title to include victims.
Not enough has been done to consider the requirements and needs of victims of the mounting crime figures over which the Government have presided. The new clauses and the amendment seek to put that right. New clause 2 would establish a mechanism in parallel to the fund established by clause 72 to help the alleged victims of relevant offences. I shall refer to new clauses 7 and 8 and then return to new clause 2.
New clauses 7 and 8 relate to victims being consulted when a charge is reduced to a less serious one. The point must be obvious to anybody who has heard the complaints of their constituents about finding out that a charge has been dropped or reduced dramatically when, in the view of witnesses and those directly affected, it should not have been dropped. They relate to the criticism that seems rife at the moment of the Crown Prosecution Service which has been referred to earlier by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).
The low priority given to victims in the criminal justice system and the lack of consideration with which they are treated is worrying. All too often victims learn that the offence has been dropped or reduced to a less serious one, not from the prosecution but from newspaper coverage of court proceedings or when they attend court as a witness. It can cause enormous distress, particularly when a rape charge is reduced to one of sexual assault.
It seems extraordinary that the victim is not consulted or kept informed of developments, yet, despite the victims charter, it happens all too often. Part of the problem appears to stem from the fact that the Crown Prosecution


Service believes that it should not contact victims directly as that would somehow ruin their impartiality. It seems a bizarre state of affairs. When the prosecution is considering withdrawing or reducing charges, it should consult both the police arid the victim.
I can confirm from conversations that we have had with police representatives that the police are unhappy with the present situation. It is symptomatic of the way in which victims are treated by the criminal justice system, and such lack of consideration pervades the system.
Victims are all too often unaware of what is happening from the time an offence is committed. They should be regularly provided with information about whether or not a suspect has been arrested, bailed, cautioned, prosecuted, convicted or sentenced. They should also be aware when someone is paroled or released from prison. They should not have to sit in the same part of the court as the relations of the defendant. They should be provided with help in court. Yet, as we saw in Committee, the Government have failed to provide funding for the Crown court witness service to develop and it has now stalled.
In addition, the Government have failed to provide finances for victim support and for all the schemes in the country that are ready to provide help for the ever-increasing number of witnesses.
The new clauses provide a mechanism whereby courts must be satisfied that a reasonable effort has been made to consult a victim when a charge has been reduced. That will have a powerful effect on the prosecution, who will be obliged to ensure that they keep the victim informed. It will therefore help to ensure that the criminal justice system works fairly for all affected by it.
New clause 2 would enable the Home Secretary to assist the victims of drug trafficking, drug-related crime or the misuse of drugs. Sometimes it is suggested that drug trafficking is a victimless crime. In some ways, it has the greatest number of victims, although they are not always named in any indictment and are more anonymous than is the case in many direct offences.
Drug users are in one sense the victims of drug trafficking, because they and their families ultimately pay the price of the drugs trade in this country. It must be acknowledged, however, that many communities also pay a heavy price for drug-related activities within them. Drug usage, and therefore the need for new clause 2, is growing.
The Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence estimates that, currently, 100,000 people—mainly young men—are dependent on heroin and that most of them inject. There is growing concern about the use of cocaine and crack. Seizures of that drug by Customs have risen ninefold over four years. That may reflect to some extent greater success in detecting drugs entering the country, but it also indicates a growing cocaine problem.
Since the 1980s, there has been a major expansion in the use of drugs associated with the rave dance youth culture. The drugs involved are mostly ecstasy, amphetamines and LSD. A new youth and drugs culture seems to be emerging, and new clause 2 would give the Government an additional instrument to tackle it at source rather than too late, as all too often happens.
Increased drug usage by young people is of particular concern. Since 1988, there has been an increase of 267 per cent. in the number of young people under the age of 17 found guilty of or cautioned for drug offences. The most recent national Gallup survey, commissioned by Wrangler and published last December, found that the number of

under-25s taking drugs doubled between 1989 and 1992, and that 30 per cent. of 15 to 24-year-olds admitted to taking drugs. Workers in a national youth agency reported an upsurge in drug usage by young people over the past two years.
Even more worrying—and giving more point and urgency to tackling the problem positively—is research by Manchester university among 800 young people in schools on Merseyside and in Greater Manchester. In 1991, when they were aged 14 to 15, 59 per cent. of those young people said that they had been offered drugs and 36 per cent. had used them. One year later, the figures had doubled—59 per cent. of the youngsters said that they had tried cannabis, 22 per cent. nitrates, 25 per cent. LSD, 16 per cent. amphetamines, and 12 per cent. magic mushrooms. Those figures are worryingly high. We do not know how representative they are of the whole population because the north-west is traditionally an area of high drug use. That research certainly suggests a disturbing trend.
We have consistently made the criticism, and repeated it in Committee, that there is a lack of in-depth research that can be used to effect policy and to tackle problems where they arise. Against the picture of increased drug use, the Government have been cutting provisions to combat drugs. New clause 2 would provide a partial mechanism for dealing with that problem.
The Government are, for example, axing drugs advisory posts. Until the end of March 1993, there were 100 health education co-ordinators advising on drugs and alcohol funded by the Department for Education. They were based in local education authorities, and workers went to schools and youth clubs. The Department ceased that funding this year. According to latest estimates, only one third of authorities that previously had co-ordinators are likely to have someone in that post this year. That is a short-sighted cut, and is one way that the Government have failed to make the connection between the effects of the actions of one Department on another and of the actions of all Departments on the crime problem.
Residential provision for drug users will be decimated by the Government's failure to ring-fence those facilities. Many projects already find it difficult to survive. By cutting pay or staff, some are hanging on—but that cannot continue indefinitely, and projects will fold. The risk to individuals in the community are huge. Individuals at risk will not receive help, and failure to make that provision—with all the implications for society as a whole of HIV among drug users who inject—could literally prove lethal.
Those cuts are short-sighted in the extreme at a time of increased drug use. The Government must ensure that those vital services continue and that funding will be forthcoming. They cannot duck their responsibilities.
New clause 2 also takes into consideration the victims of crime. Only last week the Labour party produced a report on the strain being imposed on Victim Support, which is the national charity that helps victims. That organisation has inadequate cash to meet rapidly rising need. Earlier I said that crime has risen 121 per cent. while a Conservative Government have been in power. Help for victims of crime, burglary and acts of violence is urgently needed, as the increases have been greatest in those categories.
In 1992–93, 903,000 cases were referred to Victim Support, an increase of 19 per cent. over the previous year. With Government encouragement, Victim Support is expanding its work to victims of the most serious crimes


who need specialised help—such as the victims of sexual offences and violence. That work is long-term and time-consuming.
The Government's failure to provide the money needed becomes even more incomprehensible when one considers the pitiful sums required. To cover all the outstanding applications for this year, Victim Support estimates that it needs just £500,000—a small sum compared with the Home Office budget of £5·9 million for that aspect of its work.
If the Government fail to provide that money, they will stand accused of total hypocrisy in pretending to espouse the cause of victims while denying those victims the help that they need. The Government must give urgent consideration to the needs of direct victims of drug offences and of those whose lives are wrecked by that vile trade.
The new clauses and the amendment concentrate on the needs of victims, who should be brought more centre stage in the criminal justice system. Local victim support schemes are being put under an unacceptable strain, with inadequate cash to meet rapidly rising need. If a lack of Home Office commitment allows those projects to fall, it would be short-sighted stupidity and could have tragic consequences for thousands of victims and witnesses. Such projects form a vital part of our criminal justice system, and against the background of a rise in recorded crime of 121 per cent. or more under a Conservative Government, it is a false economy not to provide the cash.
If the clauses are accepted and the long title of the Bill is amended to make reference to the victims of crime, that would restore the balance in the criminal justice system. Given the geography of the Bill, we are inevitably limited. The Opposition would like to do more. However, that change would be a modest step forward in treating victims of crime as they should be treated, and deserve to be treated, within our criminal justice system.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I want to raise one or two points on new clause 7, which deals with the consultation that the Opposition say ought to take place with victims of crime when applications are made to withdraw a charge in favour of a lesser charge.
I want to raise that matter because I have had a particularly difficult constituency case recently. I shall not mention any names for obvious reasons, but the case may give an indication of the importance of the matter. A reform in the law may not be needed, and the Opposition proposals—although well intentioned—may be difficult to carry out in practice. Charges ought to be a matter for courts and the prosecution service, rather than for victims of crime. The matter points up an important lacuna which presently exists in the law.
The case I shall refer to illustrates the distress that can be caused to victims if they are not consulted properly on a lesser charge being accepted, rather than the original charge that was put before the court.
My constituent is a young lady who, sadly, has been grossly harassed by a former boyfriend. Over a period, the police have come up with a great deal of evidence that seems to lead to the conclusion that not only harassment but blackmail was occurring.
6.30 pm
The evidence was produced, and was passed between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which then lost an important part of the evidence. The CPS has apologised subsequently through Barbara Mills to me on behalf of my constituent. Partly as a result of that loss of evidence, the court case was adjourned no fewer than five times. During that period, my constituent had to endure the same harassment that she had endured before from her former boyfriend. The harassment caused her to worry for her life.
The police continued to produce evidence, but when the case came before the court, the CPS said that it felt that the case might be thrown out if it tried for a further adjournment, and therefore that it would proceed with the case. Because it had lost evidence, however, the CPS decided that it would proceed on a lesser charge—a charge of affray—on which the defendant was likely to be found guilty. As a result, the defendant did not face a custodial sentence. The CPS said specifically that it should be informed of any further evidence of harassment to my constituent. The clear implication was that the defendant would be brought back before the court. The harassment allegedly—I use that word advisedly—has continued. The police have given evidence to the CPS, but it has refused to bring the defendant back before the court.
Much of what has occurred would not have done so had my constituent been adequately consulted on the day the matter was finally considered by the court about the lesser charge being brought against the defendant. She argues that she certainly was not consulted. I have communicated with the CPS in a fair amount of detail, and I am certain that she was not consulted adequately. If she had been, I do not believe that the problems that she faces would exist. The Government must bear that in mind when responding to the amendment.
It may not be possible to change the law on the rights of victims, but a code of practice for either the CPS, the police or the courts could be laid down stating that it is generally considered good practice that victims are consulted when lesser charges are likely to be laid and agreed to, possibly on a guilty plea, rather than greater charges—possibly carrying a custodial sentence in the case to which I referred—on a non-guilty plea. The gist of the Opposition amendment is important, and the spirit behind it is right. I hope that the Minister will he able to give a constructive response.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister intends to accept the amendments, but it is good that they are acceptable to both sides of the Chamber. I cannot allow the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) to get away with the implication that it is time that the Government started to do something for victims, however, as the time has long since passed when we have indeed done something for victims.
Britain now has one of the best schemes for the treatment and care of victims of any country in the western world. I do not see why we should not be proud of that, and of the achievements of the Government in ensuring that that is so. We have counselling schemes, voluntary sector support and a criminal injuries compensation scheme which paid out more than £109 million last year


—an increase of 50 per cent. on the previous year. A further £7·8 million will be spent this year on the nationwide network for victim support groups.
I was pleased to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government propose to increase the allocation to victim support groups again this year by an amount considerably in excess of the 1·5 per cent. rate of inflation. I am not saying that that is an adequate increase. Hon. Members espouse many causes which we think are sensible for which we would like an increase of much more than the rate of inflation in their allocations, but we know that the Government face problems with regard to their spending levels. Victim support grants have certainly not been ignored.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share the concern of some of my constituents about the length of time that it can take for a case to be dealt with by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? Is it not the case, particularly where victims have a long wait for compensation for an injury, that the delay compounds the feeling of lack of care? The lack of resources currently available to the system and the delays which are occurring mean that the credit that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave to the Government for helping victims was perhaps laid on too thickly. That matter is causing concern to some of my constituents. Are those problems shared by any of the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not seem to have had that problem in my constituency, although I recognise that it is a problem nationally. The case is exactly as the hon. Gentleman has outlined it, and that problem may have to be speedily addressed. I know that the chairman of the compensation hoard is worried about the matter.
The real problem is that the people who are making the assessments are busy practitioners and the length of time that they take to deal with such matters is becoming, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. a bit of a scandal. Something needs to be done and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will attend to the matter with speed.
Many of the points that were addressed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth are taken care of in the victims charter. That charter spells out clearly the Government's commitment to providing better help than ever before to victims of crime. Victims now have rights and entitlements that they never had before. The police, the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service have to give a great deal of consideration to the interests of victims to make it possible for them to give evidence in court in as relaxed an atmosphere as possible.
Victims should be protected in a number of ways from the old-fashioned treatment that they received previously. The charter demands that the police should respond to the needs of victims and take account of their views in deciding whether a lesser offence should be accepted and whether the offender should be cautioned. The Government have also required that, in most criminal investigations, an officer should be given sole responsibility for dealing with the needs of victims. It is precisely because of the attention that is now given to victims, particularly those of sexual offences, that women now come forward as never before to bring complaints of sexual attacks against men.
Previously women were humiliated by the courts and the judicial system, so they were loth to complain about

rape or sexual attacks. Now they are not. They do not feel humiliated. They come forward and are encouraged to do so by a much more consumer-friendly judicial system, court system and police system. That is paradoxically one of the reasons why we appear to have an increase in crime. I doubt whether more sexual offences are taking place. It is simply that many more are coming to light because of the approach to victims, which makes their complaints rather more welcome than they have ever been before. I certainly hope that that is so.
In conclusion, although it is a good thing that Conservative and Opposition Members agree about the importance of victims, it would be a bad thing if we left the Chamber thinking that the Government had done nothing about them. The Government have done an immense amount and have mostly covered the points raised by the Labour party in its new clauses and amendment.

Mr. Maclean: This is an important little debate. I am glad that we have had it and that the view has been expressed from both sides of the House that victims are terribly important. I am also glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) made the point so authoritatively that the Government have a good record in supporting the victims of crime—including drug-related crime, which is the subject of new clause 2.
The victims charter published in 1990 sets out the rights and expectations of people who have become victims of crime. Blameless victims of crimes of violence can receive compensation through the criminal injuries compensation scheme, the most generous compensation scheme for victims of crime anywhere in the world. I am sorry if I appear slightly nit-picking, but I must tell my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton that the scheme did not pay out to the victims of crime £109 million last year—it paid out £153 million.

Mr. David Trimble: I note the Minister's reference to the criminal injuries compensation scheme as the most generous in the world. I put to him the comparison with the scheme in Northern Ireland, which is on a statutory basis and gives individuals a right of appeal to the courts. I wonder whether the Minister might not like to improve the English scheme and put it on the same basis. Will he take this opportunity to disavow the rumours floating around that the Government wish to reduce the amount of compensation that victims receive by establishing some sort of tariff system?

Mr. Maclean: Even with the new tariff scheme, we shall still have the most generous victim compensation scheme anywhere in the world. I should not like to comment on the Northern Ireland scheme. The hon. Gentleman might accept that we should not be averse, with an accent like mine and an accent like his, to incorporating some of the best aspects of other legal systems in whichever part of the United Kingdom. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: In the light of his comments about the tariff and the criminal injuries compensation scheme, can the Minister assure the House that no victim of crime who is able to make an application will receive less in real terms under the new scheme than under the previous scheme?

Mr. Maclean: We are consulting widely on the proposed new tariff scheme. I alluded to criminal injuries compensation in the debate tonight only because other hon. Members raised it in discussing how generous our scheme is. I do not propose to get into the details of the tariff scheme now. We shall publish the details of it in due course. The hon. Gentleman will then be able to make his points. I merely make the point that we have a generous scheme because I do not want the record to stand with the impression that we discovered victims only during today's debate.
Victim Support has been mentioned. The Home Office is providing £8·4 million to Victim Support in the current year to provide help for the victims of crime. I must confess that I do not understand why the organisation should say—if that is indeed what it says—that it has a financial crisis. Its allocation in 1990–91 was £4·7 million. We told it then what its allocation would be for the next three years. It would receive a huge increase the next year to £5·7 million, a 40 per cent. increase to £7·3 million the following year and a further 15 per cent. increase to £8·4 million this year.
I understand that my predecessor told Victim Support well in advance, in 1990–91, the level of grants for the next three years. That gave it ample time to budget and plan its affairs with greatly increased resources.

Mr. Boateng: It could not plan and budget for the explosion of crime that has taken place in the past three years. It could not budget and plan for the pressure on local authority spending that is the result of the grant dispensation of the Department of the Environment, which has borne directly on the capacity of local authorities to support, as they would wish to do, victim support schemes. The Minister ought to show a little more sympathy to those schemes, which are often supported without funding by volunteers who give their time free and gratis with precious little appreciation. He ought to show a little more sympathy than he has just displayed.

Mr. Maclean: It is because the Government have not only uttered words of sympathy but backed them up with hard taxpayers' cash that I felt it appropriate to put on the record the huge increase in funding that has been given to Victim Support. I believe that, in 1986–87, the figure was about £1 million and in the year before that it was about £200,000 to £300,000. The Government have been generous.
I do not want to argue the case for and against Victim Support in the Chamber. I intend to meet the organisation in the reasonably near future to hear what it has to say and discuss its problems, and so that it can make representations to me.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Minister says that the money for victim support schemes comes from the taxpayer's pocket, but does not the criminal justice system also yield a substantial amount of money, through fines, which might be better deployed in helping victims?

Mr. Maclean: I would take that exhortation more seriously if the hon. Gentleman and his party did not have 200 or 300 other ideas as to how one could use the money raised from taxpayers.
Victim Support helps the victims of crime. It does a wonderful job in helping the victims both of violent crime and of non-violent crime such as burglary and fraud. It has helped more than 800,000 people, undoubtedly including many victims of drug-related crime, which I mention because it is the subject of the first amendment.
Measures to assist the victims of drug misuse include treatment and rehabilitation services. The Government are already making more than £24 million available to health authorities this year for specialist drug services. That provision is in addition to the hospital and general practitioner services available for the treatment of health problems other than addiction related to drug misuse.

Mr. Boateng: What about the victims of drug trafficking who have to inhabit the estates and tower blocks where lift wells, lifts and entrance halls are used by drug traffickers? What compensation will those victims of the offence of drug trafficking receive? One understands the work that is being done. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) say from a sedentary position that that is a silly point. She ought to know better. It is not silly to the many people whose lives are ruined by the activities of drug traffickers who make their housing estates a living hell. There is nothing silly about that. The hon. Lady would do well to keep her opinions to herself or at least have the guts to stand up and make a speech.

Mr. Maclean: Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I should like to answer that weak point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That was an intervention. It is up to the Minister to decide whether he wants to give way.

Mr. Maclean: I give way.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Thank you, Minister. My point was that it is one thing to make awards, very rightly, to specific victims, but it is extremely difficult to compensate an entire housing block or all the people who use a lift. It is essential that aid is targeted. Opposition Members had no scheme when they were in office, but ours has been moving up steadily and I am in favour of it. However, it should not be dissipated in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).

Mr. Maclean: The point is that, wherever our constituents may live, whether in housing estates or rural areas, if they know of neighbours, associates or people who inhabit the areas where they live who are indulging in drug trafficking, dealing or any other crimes, the first step must be maximum co-operation and liaison with the police. In such cases, we are all potential victims of crime, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that this is not a matter for criminal injuries compensation or a special scheme targeted to help people who may be living in an area where drug traffickers are operating.
We have the powers in this Act, supported by the Opposition, to crack down heavily on drug traffickers and confiscate their ill-gotten gains. We must continue with that pincer movement. Also, local people must report every incident that they come across of drug trafficking or drug-related crime.
Directly or indirectly, considerable support has already been provided across a broad range of services for the victims of crime and drug misuse. We covered much of the ground on this when amendments to clause 45 and a related new clause were considered at an earlier stage. I thought that I had satisfied the Committee that the powers that the Secretary of State already has to make grants for all aspects of drug prevention and education were sufficiently wide that this amendment would not be necessary. I merely say again that the Secretary of State's powers are sufficiently wide, and I do not believe that this is necessary.
I understand and respect the motivation behind the proposed new clauses 7 and 8. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) mentioned a sad and tragic case. I understand why he feels sympathy for the points that have been made in the debate. The interest of the victims is one area to which I want to pay particular attention in the coming months. I spent this morning sitting in the spectators' gallery of a London magistrates court. I then went to lunch with the magistrates and discussed their concerns about crime. Tomorrow I shall be meeting victims of crime and over the next few weeks I shall have a series of meetings with the victims of crime, the police and those at the sharp end. As I said in the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) in the first debate that I addressed as Minister responsible for law and order, I intend to meet the victims and those at the sharp end before I meet the professionals with the theories about how we should deal with crime.
The victims charter has already been mentioned. A total of 31 of the 51 standards in that have already been met and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I plan to establish whether the interests of the victim can be better protected in certain circumstances by complementing a caution with some sort of reparation or compensation to the victim.
It is important that we keep victims informed of the progress of a case. That is the Government's objective and we intend to turn our attention to that, but that is quite different from making the Crown Prosecution Service consult victims on the appropriate level of charge that should be made. It is the task of the independent Crown Prosecution Service to make an objective judgment in the light of the evidence available. The need to alter charges arises, quite properly, when the police, in bringing the prosecution, have over-charged, perhaps because of an over-optimistic view of the evidence or when the value of the evidence changes—for instance, following scientific analysis.
The code for Crown prosecutors—that is a public document, approved by Parliament—makes it clear that, when a case is brought to court the charges brought should reflect the criminality of the behaviour being prosecuted, and in the absence of any other criteria should be the most serious charges and can be supported by the evidence. The code also directs that the interests of the victim should be taken into account. I fear that to extend this by effectively imposing on the CPS a duty to consult the victim would raise expectations for the victim that could not, in reality, be realised.

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has clearly been mainlining on caffiene. I hope that I shall not engender her wrath by pointing out to the Minister the real concern that was

expressed in Committee about the families of victims of road traffic offences—particularly death by reckless driving—who do not at the moment have any real place or status within the criminal justice system. The Minister was good enough to say that he would have a word with the Lord Chancellor's Department about that. I wonder if he will share with us the results of that word and whether he feels that those families should be informed before the CPS determines to drop or reduce any charges. Their suffering is all too often forgotten, and it is a cause of concern to many hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Maclean: I agree entirely. I have not yet had a chance to have a word with the Lord Chancellor or his Department, so I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman anything more than I told him last week in Committee, but I can reassure him that I shall have discussions on this and the other points that both he and my hon. Friends made in Committee about talking to the administrators of the courts about having separate facilities, for those giving evidence on the side of the victim and those supporting the defendant.
The Crown Prosecution Service must determine the appropriate charge to put before the court. It will be aware of the victim's loss in all cases, but the determining factor will have to be the available evidence. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will be prepared to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Michael: I am glad that the Minister has accepted some of our arguments in this short debate. However, we want him to be more than a spectator, more than just a travelling voyeur, of the effect of crime on victims. We want action to help victims, just as in our first new clause we demanded a reduction of crime and, therefore, a reduction in the number of victims.
There does not seem to be any understanding among some Conservative members of the way in which good people in some areas, particularly in some of our cities, are affected by drug trafficking. In their homes and communities, they are the victims of drug-related crime. We must abandon no families or communities to that sort of misery. There must be no complacency in the House about the problem in so many of our inner cities.
My constituent, whose son was seriously damaged when a glass was pushed into his face in a pub, was horrified to find that the serious charge against the perpetrator of the action had been reduced, and that a very low penalty was imposed for the lesser crime heard by the court. I understand the anger, frustration and misery that she felt because she felt that she had not been given the opportunity to comment on the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service.
The intention is not to take away the objectivity of the Crown Prosecution Service. It must take the decision whether to prosecute and on what charge. However, the CPS should inform and consult and it should listen to those involved and understand the pain that is felt by the victim and the victim's family. How can the CPS listen and understand, as the Minister suggests, unless that opportunity is provided? That is why the consultation proposed in our amendment is so important.
The achievement of Victim Support has been tremendous over recent years, since I was involved in the


early days in the setting up of the first of the Cardiff schemes 10 years or more ago. It has developed enormously. However, it needs to develop further.
I welcome the agreement of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) to some of our points, but he was a little complacent when he suggested that the Government have done enough for victims. The Government have encouraged Victim Support to expand further, but they have not provided the resources to match the amount required. The Government said to Victim Support, "Expand to meet needs in those areas." What are the areas? Where is the money to meet that need?
Grant applications are outstanding for new posts in Bradford, Harrogate, north-east Leeds, Erewash, High Peak, Leicester, Loughborough, Handsworth, Telford, mid-Warwickshire, Wolverhampton, Cheltenham, Falmouth, Newquay, north Devon, Somerset, Westonsuper-Mare, Chiltern, Crawley, Greenford, Greenwich, the Medway towns, Newham, Redbridge, Swale, Waltham Forest, Manchester and Wigan.
Schemes are waiting for outstanding hours in Durham, Loughborough, Peterborough, Shrewsbury, Ely, Fenland, Forest Heath, south Norfolk, north Devon, Somerset, Stroud, Truro, Wiltshire, Bexley, Brentford, Chiswick, Crawley, Gosport, Greenwich, Hemel Hempstead, Newbury, Richmond and Sutton and Cynon Valley.
7 pm.
Those applications were made because Victim Support was encouraged by the Minister's predecessor to develop schemes to help victims. However, the problem is that the money has not been provided to meet aspirations that the Home Office encouraged.
The Minister said that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board operates the most generous scheme in the world. Many victims are now excluded because of the increase in the threshold from £550 to £1,000, which precludes from consideration one in three victims of violent crime. The Minister refused to say whether it is true that he intends to increase the threshold to £1,500. If he does, it will add to the damage that has been done already by increasing the threshold. No, we cannot accept that the Government are doing enough for victims. It is only right that we should press the new clause to a vote.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister's speech revealed what little interest he has in the views of hon. Members. It was clear that he had not troubled to use the time between Committee and Report to consult the Lord Chancellor's Department about the effect of new clauses 7 and 8. He was derelict in his duty in coming before the House without having properly informed himself of the view of the responsible Cabinet Minister.
The difficulties that the House experiences in not being able to question the Lord Chancellor are of long standing, but it will not do to put up a Minister to answer a debate who has not taken the trouble to inform himself of the position, especially as he undertook to do so. No doubt that will be noted in another place when the Bill is reconsidered.
All hon. Members are concerned about the problems of victims. We all know that, under this Government, the number of victims has risen inexorably year after year, and that the Government's instant criminal justice legislation

in almost every Session has done nothing to stem the rising tide of victims. No victims suffer more than the victims of drug trafficking, drug-related crime and the misuse of drugs.
The Government's objection to the importation into the Bill of what is, after all, only a proposed power, not a requirement, to make grants to such persons is hard to understand. The Minister should simply have accepted the proposal, for it certainly does not impose a duty on him to make any amounts available; it simply allows the Secretary of State to intervene as appropriate in particular cases. The spectacle of the victims of drug-related crime in our inner cities gives rise to the deepest concern in our society today.
I have no doubt that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen were right to draw attention to the sense of outrage that is felt by many people whose relatives have been victims of a serious offence when that serious offence is dropped and a lesser charge preferred. I imagine that many hon. Members will have had experience of complaints from constituents in just such circumstances, because they do not find it satisfactory that the Crown Prosecution Service has not consulted in the manner proposed.
In seeking to decide the appropriate charge to bring, it is surely important to consider the consequence of the offence, and if that is to be taken fully into account, consultation with the victim would seem an appropriate step to take. It does not, of course, mean that the victim would have any say over the appropriate charge; it would merely provide the Crown Prosecution Service with evidence on which to make an appropriate judgment.
For those reasons, we shall support the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) if he decides to push the matter to a Division.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 270.

Division No. 311]
[7.05 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Callaghan, Jim


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Alton, David
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cann, Jamie


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Armstrong, Hilary
Clapham, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Austin-Walker, John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ann


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cohen, Harry


Bell, Stuart
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, Andrew F.
Corston, Ms Jean


Benton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, Bob


Berry, Dr. Roger
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Blair, Tony
Dafis, Cynog


Blunkett, David
Dalyell, Tam


Boateng, Paul
Darling, Alistair


Boyes, Roland
Davidson, Ian


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Denham, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dewar, Donald


Burden, Richard
Dixon, Don


Byers, Stephen
Dobson, Frank


Caborn, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H.






Dowd, Jim
Madden, Max


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mahon, Alice


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mandelson, Peter


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Etherington, Bill
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maxton, John


Fatchett, Derek
Meacher, Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meale, Alan


Flynn, Paul
Michael, Alun


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Milburn, Alan


Foster, Don (Bath)
Miller, Andrew


Foulkes, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Fraser, John
Morley, Elliot


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Galbraith, Sam
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Galloway, George
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gapes, Mike
Mowlam, Marjorie


Garrett, John
Mudie, George


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Gerrard, Neil
Murphy, Paul


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Godsiff, Roger
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Gordon, Mildred
O'Hara, Edward


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Olner, William


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Patchett, Terry


Grocott, Bruce
Pickthall, Colin


Gunnell, John
Pike, Peter L.


Hain, Peter
Pope, Greg


Hall, Mike
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hanson, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Prescott, John


Henderson, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Heppell, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Radice, Giles


Hinchliffe, David
Randall, Stuart


Hoey, Kate
Raynsford, Nick


Hoon, Geoffrey
Rendel, David


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Hoyle, Doug
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rogers, Allan


Hutton, John
Rooker, Jeff


Illsley, Eric
Rooney, Terry


Ingram, Adam
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rowlands, Ted


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Ruddock, Joan


Jamieson, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Janner, Greville
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Short, Clare


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Simpson, Alan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Skinner, Dennis


Jowell, Tessa
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Keen, Alan
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Khabra, Piara S.
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Snape, Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Soley, Clive


Leighton, Ron
Spearing, Nigel


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lewis, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Livingstone, Ken
Stevenson, George


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Llwyd, Elfyn
Straw, Jack


Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


McAllion, John
Tipping, Paddy


McAvoy, Thomas
Trimble, David


McCartney, Ian
Vaz, Keith


Macdonald, Calum
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


McFall, John
Wareing, Robert N


Mackinlay, Andrew
Watson, Mike


McLeish, Henry
Wicks, Malcolm


Maclennan, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


McMaster, Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)





Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wilson, Brian



Wise, Audrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Dennis Turner and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Wray, Jimmy



Wright, Dr Tony



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dunn, Bob


Aitken, Jonathan
Eggar, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Elletson, Harold


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amess, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ancram, Michael
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evennett, David


Ashby, David
Faber, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Bates, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
French, Douglas


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gardiner, Sir George


Body, Sir Richard
Garnier, Edward


Booth, Hartley
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Andrew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowis, John
Gorst, John


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hague, William


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Butler, Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Hendry, Charles


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clappison, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Horam, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coe, Sebastian
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan, Alan
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knapman, Roger






Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sackville, Tom


Knox, Sir David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Legg, Barry
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Leigh, Edward
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lidington, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lightbown, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spink, Dr Robert


Maclean, David
Spring, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sproat, Iain


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Madel, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stephen, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sweeney, Walter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Milligan, Stephen
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thomason, Roy


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moss, Malcolm
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nelson, Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trend, Michael


Norris, Steve
Twinn, Dr Ian


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard
Walden, George


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Irvine
Waterson, Nigel


Patten, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Wells, Bowen


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Ray


Pickles, Eric
Whittingdale, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Ann


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Powell, William (Corby)
Wilkinson, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Richards, Rod
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Riddick, Graham
Wolfson, Mark


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Robathan, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn



Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

BAIL APPLICATIONS (CODE OF PRACTICE)

'. The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a Code of Practice for the courts in respect of the options available to them in deciding bail applications'.—[Mr. Michael]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is intended to deal with the need for action to reduce offending while on bail. Offending while on bail is one of the issues which seem to produce more heat than light, certainly among members of the Government. There is outrage in the country about the way in which young offenders in particular appear to be offending on bail with impunity.
There are two ways of dealing with the problem. One is the punitive approach, or the refusal of bail, which is certainly necessary in some circumstances. However, we also need to tackle the problem from the opposite angle. Let me put it this way: if the bath is overflowing, it is sensible to turn off the tap and take out the plug. We believe that the Government should tackle the problem from both ends, which is the purpose of the new clause.
We know that young people in particular commit many offences while on bail. It is surprising that Ministers have not set in train much more detailed research and analysis of the phenomenon. I have commented many times on the unsatisfactory nature of much existing research. Those who examine the research that is available will find that offending on bail is a serious problem which needs to be tackled, but we need to be precise about the numbers involved. Is there a small number of offenders committing a large number of the offences while on bail or a larger number committing some offences? Is the problem endemic or is it confined to a few? Such questions have not been properly researched.
The Minister would help if he were to announce—and I call on him to do so—that he will commission some immediate research which will enable those who take decisions in court and in the House to have up-to-date and accurate information rather than information that comes to hand many months too late when the game—for that is what it seems to be to some people—has moved on. As in so many other spheres which impinge on the criminal justice system, there is a lack of information about offending on bail on which we can base our policies.
The one recent major piece of Home Office research on bail, published in 1992, suggested that between 10 per cent. and 17 per cent. of people on bail commit further offences. Younger people on remand for car crime or burglary are the most likely to reoffend while on bail, which is why, in the documents that it has published, Labour has concentrated on trying to analyse the two problems and has come up with solutions. It is also why we call on the Minister, as we called on his predecessors, to take targeted action to deal with those two types of crime.
There is no doubt that the offending behaviour of the young can escalate while they are waiting for a case to come to court. In my experience of working with young people, and with young offenders in particular, it was clear that the likelihood of something serious happening in court affected their behaviour. It is therefore important that the court should have a range of options available to it in deciding whether to allow bail. The court should also have the best possible information available to it.
A policy that relies solely on providing the court with more powers after someone has reoffended while on bail offers insufficient protection to the public. We need to reduce the extent of the problem as well as considering ways of tackling it when it arises. That is why the Government's proposals to allow the courts to sentence more severely for offending on bail are inadequate to deal with the whole problem. We need sensible means to ensure that crimes are not committed in the first place. We need


to be tough on offending while on bail and tough on preventing offending while on bail in order to get the balance right.
Among the options that should be available to all courts are bail hostels and bail support and enforcement schemes. A code of practice would help the courts to be aware of the range of facilities that should be available in each area and perhaps help them to be more pro-active in ensuring that those facilities become available in their localities if they are not already provided.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman mentioned bail hostels. Will he accept that the provision of such hostels does not prevent people from reoffending while on bail and that mature people who are put into bail hostels may also reoffend? Even those who have been accused of sex offences are also put in bail hostels, which may be located near schools and nursery schools. The hon. Gentleman makes much of how we should tackle the problem from both ends has nothing positive to say about how to stop people reoffending. We cannot incarcerate people in bail hostels for 24 hours a day; people are perfectly free to roam and reoffend at will.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady comes to the nub of one of my repeated criticisms of the Government. The Government have a range of options available, but they do not resource them adequately or think through properly the way in which they are used. Bail hostels are one of the available options but, all too often, they are not adequately supervised——

Mrs. Winterton: rose——

Mr. Michael: May I ask the hon. Lady to contain herself for a moment? The problem that I am highlighting is the fact that we need a range of options to fit the appropriate one to the appropriate people. Sometimes people are put into bail hostels when such hostels are not appropriate for them.

Mrs. Winterton: rose——

Mr. Michael: In a moment. That was the point that the hon. Lady was making, and it is a valid one. Unless we have a criminal justice system that offers a range of options for supporting and enforcing obedience to bail requirements, we shall not succeed in reducing the offending that occurs while on bail. If people are put into bail hostels for which they are not suited, they will reoffend. Part of the problem is that the Government have no coherent, rational approach and have not thought through their policy.

Mrs. Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so patient. I refute everything that he has said about the funding of bail hostels. The Home Office has thrown thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money at the problem. There is a bail hostel in my constituency. It is splendidly appointed and very well run, but one cannot incarcerate people for more than a specific number of hours at night, or after curfew and before the morning. The courts decide who shall and who shall not be allowed hail. There are two options: we put young and middle-aged people in bail hostels where they may reoffend, or we put them where they are incarcerated. What is the alternative to those two options?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady is not entirely right in saying that bail hostels have money coming out of their ears. I was able to inspect regularly a bail hostel in an adjoining constituency when I was for several years a member of a probation committee. At that time, there was a complete lack of finance to cope properly with the appointment and conditions at the hostel and with staffing levels. I accept that there have been improvements since then, but another problem arose when the Home Office recently decided to accelerate the number of places being made available at bail hostels. One could say that it went too fast because in many communities it seemed that decisions about the location of hostels were taken too speedily, which whipped up many problems. Decisions had to be taken very quickly if the probation committees were not to lose the money. We need a considered and intregrated approach to the problem.
I must inform the hon. Lady that the options she outlined are not the only ones available. A range of options could be made available for dealing with young offenders if the resources were provided. As she says, one option is incarceration, whether in prison or in secure accommodation. One problem with that option is that, two and a half years after the Government's promise to deal with the scandal of young people being held in adult prison accommodation, secure places have not been made available.
The second option is the bail hostel, but there are other options. For example, there is the option of a young person staying at home or being reintroduced to the home. There are various fostering schemes and options of employment-related placement. Let us not lose sight of the fact that there is a whole range of options, and a whole range of requirements, available to the court. The trouble often is that the court is limited because the options are not available in practice in the locality.
For that reason, we have introduced the new clause, which is limited only by the geography of the Bill. We should like to go further and say that there should he a high standard of bail support and enforcement schemes in place in every area where the demand exists. But, for technical reasons, we are limited by the nature of the Bill, so we have tabled an amendment which, we hope, goes part of the way down the right road.
7.30 pm
It is for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a code of practice for the court in respect of the options available to it in deciding bail applications. If courts must consider the options available to them, there will inevitably be pressure for a greater range of such options.
A great deal of work, some of it commissioned by the Home Office, has already been done. It demonstrates the extent to which we can reduce and prevent crime, including among those who have started on an offending pattern. The failure to follow that work through—to develop it from a project to a strategic basis—is a criticism of the Government's failure to tackle and reduce crime.

Mrs. Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that none of the matters that he has put forward will stop people reoffending, no matter what wonderful schemes are introduced by the Government or proposed by the Opposition? Young and older offenders will not be stopped reoffending, and that concerns local people. They would prefer to see young offenders in institutions—


"incarcerated" is the word I used earlier—because at least they are then not being a problem to people going about their normal lives.

Mr. Michael: It might be wise for me to translate that and leave the Minister to answer the hon. Lady because what she said flies in the face of everything that any Minister or Home Office publication has stated. She says that, if people offend, it is inevitable that they will continue to offend. That is not the case. She says that we must accept as inevitable that, whatever we do, people will go on reoffending and all our efforts will have no effect on their patterns of offending. That is not true.
I worked on an estate in my city of Cardiff for a number of years. The inter-agency work that was done between probation, social services, youth workers and others was recognised by the police as having had great benefit. The local chief constable said in his annual report that it had led to a reduction in crime. Indeed, the probation service withdrew from the project because it reported that so few youngsters were coming to court, because they were not offending, that the service could not justify its continued involvement in the project.
There are two alternatives—that is the hon. Lady's view and she may wish to have it polarised in that way—in that one either allows crime to rise and simply seeks to punish, or one does what the Opposition say, which is to punish where one cannot prevent but prevent where one can because if one fails to prevent, one will have damaged the offender, who will continue to deteriorate in his or her lifestyle, one will have damaged the victim and one will have damaged the community in which both of them may live.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman is waxing eloquent about the need to punish where one cannot prevent, and particularly about the need to take action over juvenile offenders. Will he support the Government's plan for secure training orders?

Mr. Michael: I shall look carefully at the Government's plan for secure training orders. It is a curious plan because it comes from the Home Office without an indication of the Department of Health's view, even though the latter is the Department responsible for its implementation for 15 and 16-year-olds.
I shall be interested to see the evidence that the Government have to support the need for that type of institution, which will be spread thinly across the country, some of them being a long way from offenders' homes and the places to which they will have to return after being in those institutions. Have we reason to think that those institutions will be more successful than the previous attempts, such as the short, sharp shock, from which the Government had to turn back?
I would look with more interest at a Home Secretary who introduced such a scheme—if he were not running with enthusiasm for higher office in his party at the time—and if he or his predecessor had delivered the secure places necessary to end the scandal, to which I referred, of 15 and l6-year-olds having to be held in adult prison accommodation because of there being nowhere else for them to be sent.
I suspect that, in private, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) would be as critical as I am

of the Government's failure, in relation to the promise made in February 1991, to deliver any of the places required. It is easy to point to areas where the Conservatives have failed abjectly to keep their promises and to deal with the enforcement and support of bail.
Bail, when granted by a court, should be treated seriously. Youngsters and adults alike should say, "I shall be in real trouble if I breach my bail conditions." The slowness of the criminal justice system has led to bail being treated with contempt. That cannot be good for young people, for the community, for the courts or for the respect in which people hold the criminal justice system.
That is why we need positive action. We must punish if the opportunity is not taken, when given, to come out of the pattern of offending—when the opportunity for support and enforcement is there—but we have every right to tell the Government that they should be making the conditions right to support and enforce bail conditions when they are granted by the courts. As we agree, reoffending damages everyone—the offender, the victim and the community—but above all it damages confidence in the criminal justice system and the police.
The police will be further undermined by yesterday's White Paper, which will do nothing to cut crime and help them in their task. Action of the sort proposed by the new clause would do somethng to reduce the amount of offending and reoffending with which the police must deal.
Bail support and enforcement schemes represent one of the best ways to reduce offending by young people, in particular, while they are on bail. The schemes must use a wide range of approaches to get people to comply with the requirements of bail, and I commend the reports that have been published on approaches that have been tried on an experimental basis. They have included regular reporting, placements with volunteers during evenings and weekends, the monitoring of school attendance, assistance with employment and work with offenders' families.
The Minister will recall the Opposition's suggestion that an order should be available to the court to encourage those types of activity post-sentence. We made that and other suggestions in Committee when we debated alternative sentences for young people. Such schemes can apply to people who are on bail, but they must be put into operation quickly, preferably while the person is waiting to come to court for sentence. If one's own child does something wrong, one punishes him or her today, not in a week, a month or three months—now. All too often, the problem with the criminal justice system is that it takes many months before a sentence is given by a court. The period of bail is far too long,and that assists in bringing the whole system into disrepute.
Some areas have remand fostering arrangements, such as I referred to in my response to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) in which foster parents are able to take remanded people at short notice. Only a minority of areas possess a comprehensive range of bail support and remand fostering facilities. That might in part explain the wide variation of the use of custodial remands across the country. It is one of the reasons why the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders called last week for a statutory obligation on local authorities to set up bail support schemes That was a plea from those who, day to day, deal with trying to enforce the observance of bail.
We could not craft an amendment or a new clause which would have gone that far, but in new clause 5 we go some way, and it at least gives a starting point which would enable the Minister to take a great step forward if he would only see what an opportunity it offers. Sadly, until now—I acknowledge that the Minister is new to his post—the Government have been big on talk and quick to legislate, but small and slow when it comes to positive action which will increase success in supporting and enforcing bail. A code of practice for the courts in relation to bail options will help to ensure that those facilities are provided more uniformly across the country.
The Home Office's own research shows that there are links between offending and reoffending and the circumstances of the offender. If those matters are addressed during the period of bail, a contribution can be made to cutting reoffending and therefore cutting the increase in crime which we suffer at present and which the Government seem so ready to tolerate.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The public are rightly alarmed at the large number of offences that are being committed by offenders while on bail, and they want something done about it. It would be encouraging if the Opposition said that they would positively support the Government's proposals to have secure training orders for the hard core of persistent juvenile offenders who most frequently in recent years have come to public notice for offending on bail. However. it is a matter not just of juvenile offenders but of adult offenders.
It was in 1948, I think, that Lord Chief Justice Goddard, in the Phillips case, said that bail should seldom be given to burglars because they would only burgle while they were on bail. In this modern age, we cannot say such a thing, but that shows that the problem of persistent offenders has been with us for many years.
I greatly welcome the Government's attitude to bail, which has been manifested by their action. Clause 29, which allows the courts to take into account the commission of a criminal offence while on bail as an aggravating factor when it comes to sentence, so that an increased sentence can be passed on anyone who commits an offence while on bail, is a constructive step forward and will meet considerable support from the British people.

Mr. Michael: To assist the hon. and learned Gentleman, clause 29 is actually about money laundering. I think that he is referring to the amendments as urged by the Opposition, although not as well crafted as those to clause 29 of the 1991 Bill.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am referring to clause 65.
That is not all that the Government are doing. They are also supporting the Bill being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall), which will give the prosecution the right to appeal against the grant of bail. That is a substantial step forward which, if passed by the House, will make a contribution and help to reassure people.
A further step should be taken. One of the reasons why so many offences are committed on bail is that magistrates have a totally wrong idea of the law and seem to think, perhaps on the guidance of some magistrates' clerks, that they are unable to remand certain people in custody. With the 20 new prisons that have been built, there should be some places available for rather more people than there

were 10 years ago, in reasonable accommodation while they are remanded in custody. Magistrates should be retrained, or certainly better trained, in their responsibilities as magistrates to remand people in custody in appropriate cases. There are too many cases in which people are given bail by magistrates. Attention to training is necessary.
7.45 pm
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has brought forward a code of practice. That is fine, but he then shot down his balloon by saying something with which I wholeheartedly agree: it is time that we had proper research and analysis and came up with a more systematic response to the problem of offending while on bail. The Government have plans in mind—I do not know how far they have gone; perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us. However, as long as that matter remains incomplete, it would be rather feeble of us to introduce a code of practice.
We do not need a code of practice; we need a code of action. If the Government are involving themselves in a code of action which, apart from the proposed changes that they are making, will improve the training of magistrates and judges and make sure that we examine the subject to the necessary extent, that will be a much more constructive response to the problem than a code of practice.

Mr. Michael: I endorse the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about the need for a code of action. I hope that I made it clear that the geography of the Bill limited us in bringing forward an amendment or a new clause that would have gone further than that. We are limited to the idea of a code of practice because of the way in which the Government established and crafted their own Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman and I are at one on that point.

Mr. Maclean: Let me make it clear that the Government's approach to crime is twofold—prevent offending in the first place and then crack down on those who abuse the right to bail. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) says, "Resources, resources, resources," as though more resources in this and every other matter would prevent youngsters from forming the wrong ideas of what is right and what is wrong in society in the first place. I would pay attention to his plea for more resources if he would acknowledge that, under the Government, resources in the criminal justice system have increased by 105 per cent. in real terms. In case the hon. Gentleman does not know what that means, it is above the level of inflation, and that is a considerable amount of resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) might be horrified to hear that we are spending not hundreds of pounds but millions of pounds on bail hostels. In 1992, an extra £8 million was allocated for bail hostels. That is supposed to be good news, but my hon. Friend might not take it in that way. That is just another example of the huge resources that we have been making available to the criminal justice system. The greatest part of resources is on the crime prevention side—16,000 full-time policemen in England and Wales. That is not to be sneezed at.
I accept that the new clause seems to be an honest attempt to assist the courts in their awareness of the


options available in deciding bail applications. To my knowledge, there are only three possible decisions in any bail application: remand in custody, unconditional bail or bail with conditions. The Home Office has already established a substantial body of research into identifying practical ways of improving the information available for bail decision makers, thereby improving the quality of those decisions. The result will be available early next year.
I do not believe, therefore, that we need a code of practice covering the courts' options when deciding bail. The Bail Act 1976 sets out the need to consider carefully all the factors in a particular case before the judges or magistrates arrive at a decision. It sets out the conditions that can be attached to a grant of bail. As I explained in Committee, both judges and magistrates are fully aware of the terms and requirements of the Bail Act—at least, they ought to be; they have training on it. I take on board the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) about the adequacy of training. I believe that it is adequate, but this is a point to which I shall certainly turn my attention.
Judges and magistrates know those terms and requirements and, if they are minded to grant bail with, for example, conditions of residence, they will inquire as a matter of course into local circumstances and local bail support provisions, hostels, accommodation, and so on.
My main concern about the proposed code of practice is that we must beware of inhibiting a court's discretion. The court has all the relevant facts about the alleged offender. If it does not, it has the power to ask for them. The court is best placed to decide what conditions to impose on a defendant. The probation service and the courts are already in close contact to ensure that the latter understand what is available to them and the effect that any such scheme will have on defendants.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth shocked me by saying that bail was being treated with contempt—those were his words. If that is the case, bail ought not to be granted in the first place. It would alarm me if magistrates granted bail who had before them accused persons who had a history of treating bail with contempt; there would be a prime case for not granting bail. So I do not see how a code of practice would improve the situation if people were offending on bail.
I have no objection in principle to any sensible innovation whose effect might be to make the courts better informed of the options available. After all, what my hon. Friends and I and the Opposition are aiming for is to will the courts to come to the right decision, so that people who are granted bail do not offend again, but treat it properly, and those who ought not to be granted bail are not granted bail. That is what we all want. We want every decision, magically, to be right.
I believe that the courts have all the information that they need at the present time to help them come to those decisions. We cannot invent a code of practice, either voluntary or statutory, to deal with the hundreds of thousands of different people coming before different courts, in different parts of the country. and being charged with different offences. In my view, we cannot give any guidance that would better help in those individual, very local, personal decisions. We must leave magistrates with that essential discretion.
If magistrates were coming to me in droves, or even individually, begging me to give them a code of practice to help them reach better decisions, I would take it very seriously. Indeed, I might have a team of people already working on such a code. But they have not come to me with that request. For that reason and others, I cannot support the new clause.

Mr. Michael: I regret the Minister's response, and a couple of points need to be made to him quite directly.
I should be more impressed on hearing that resources for the criminal justice system are up 105 per cent. if the Minister would acknowledge with greater seriousness that the increase in crime over the period of office of this Government is up 121 per cent. If we look at those crimes for which the issue of bail is of most importance, we see that violence against the person is up 120 per cent. and robbery is up 324 per cent. Those figures are for recorded crimes, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) says. The actual increase, as far as we can tell, is commensurate with that, but certainly recorded crime shows those massive increases. The evidence of the Government's own reports is such that we should certainly be worried about the way in which these serious crimes are increasing.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The point is that, if more people are reporting crime, because the courts are more user-friendly towards women, and there are more telephones, more cars and more insurance claims that have to be reported to the police, that obviously exaggerates the proportion of reported crimes compared with those that used not to be reported.

Mr. Michael: If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the courts are user-friendly and that people are reporting with such enthusiasm, he is more complacent than I thought. Many people in communities throughout the country say that they are not reporting things because there is no point in reporting to the police, since nothing happens. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman will acknowledge, therefore, that the likelihood is that, far from exaggerating the increase in crime, the figures for reported crime probably understate the situation.
That makes the point on which we are both agreed, however, about the dearth of adequate research on some of these issues. If we look at the British crime survey and the figures for reported crime, we have some reason for confidence that the figures that I am quoting, which are Government figures, are not exaggerated.
A moment ago, I quoted the figure for robbery, up 324 per cent. The Minister's figure of a 105 per cent. increase in resources for the criminal justice system does not look too bright against that. Burglary is up 148 per cent.; vehicle crime, up 162 per cent.; and criminal damage, up 182 per cent. Those are the figures in which the Minister should be taking a, real interest, rather than mentioning 105 per cent. for resources—a far lower figure—with such complacency.

Mr. Maclean: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the British crime survey shows that the increase in recorded crime is about double the rise in actual crime?

Mr. Michael: I believe that there is great suspicion about those figures, and I gave the reason for that. There


is a great feeling throughout the country, illustrated in all sorts of ways, that there has been a diminution in recording.
If the hon. and learned Member for Burton thinks that people are reporting crime in increased numbers and with increased confidence, he should speak to some of the communities, young people and senior police officers to whom I have spoken recently. He will find that the view that he has just expressed is not one that any of them endorse.
The need for courts to have all the necessary information in front of them is dealt with in another amendment, but some of the Government's decisions are not helping in that regard. The Government must set the pattern of facilities that is necessary for those options to be available to the courts. It is not much use a court having information about a very limited range of options if that means that its hands are tied.
Resources are involved—I am glad that the Minister noticed that point. Modest investment is needed to deal with and diminish this problem of offending while on bail, instead of tolerating it, and therefore tolerating the massive increase in money that will be needed to lock away anybody who offends or reoffends, as seems to be the desire of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).
If the Minister—I thought that this was one of the most remarkable pieces of complacency from a Home Office Minister for some time, and there is quite a bit of competition for that accolade—thinks that bail is not being treated with contempt by some youngsters and groups of youngsters, in particular, and by some adults, he certainly needs to listen more to police, young people and communities in my constituency and in other constituencies throughout the country. He should listen to the views of other hon. Members. His complacency on that issue will not be reflected by comments from Labour Members or, I suspect by comments from Conservative Members, either.

Mr. Maclean: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I was making the point that if bail was treated with contempt by some people, which I accept, his code of practice was not the solution to the problem?

8 pm

Mr. Michael: The code of practice would contribute to solving that problem, but it would not solve the problem in itself. There is a need for sentencing, punishment, disposals while on bail and disposals in the community to take into account the need to diminish reoffending.
I said earlier that the current system was showing signs of strain and that there were many occasions on which police, magistrates and others felt that it was being treated with contempt. I should have thought that the Minister would act in two ways: first, he should accept the proposed code of conduct as a constructive, small step in the right direction; and, secondly, in his capacity as Minister, he should set about providing resources to enable the establishment of a full pattern of bail support and enforcement and the whole range of constructive options that I mentioned.
I advise the Minister to consider the remarks of his predecessors in office. He will find that they praised projects of the sort that I mentioned and said how effective they have been. I urge the Minister to take a bit of time to consider my options and to work them more and more into

the implementation of Government policy, and not just to do as his predecessors have tended to do and pay lip service to them.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton acknowledged the important need for research. Perhaps the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which he is Chairman, may take a view on that. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the former Chairman of that Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), has led an investigation by the all-party group on penal affairs—of which he is chairman—which I hope will make a useful contribution. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Minister will consider the outcome of those considerations.
This is the first time for a number of years that the right hon. Member for Westminster, North has not been involved in the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill. He has always made a significant contribution and it is a little sad that he is precluded from participating, having taken up ministerial office. Bearing in mind his. contributions to such debates over recent years, it is only appropriate to congratulate him on his appointment.
Reference was made to aspects other than those in the new clause. Of course the new clause is not the whole answer. The Bail (Amendment) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall), made its way because of the help that I gave it in Committee, because some of the Opposition amendments were accepted and becasuse we smoothed its way through the rather difficult procedures that normally make it impossible for any continued support—as a result of which, I hope, we shall hear soon that that Bill, with the right of appeal for courts against the granting of bail in appropriate circumstances, will be back before the House at the end of the week.
With all honesty, my hon. Friends and I have shown that we are not concerned with just one aspect of the fight against crime and the fight against reoffending while on bail. We are concerned that there should be a proper and balanced range of ways in which to deal with such problems, which will include punitive and preventive measures, as well as constructive measures such as those that we urge in the new clause.
The Minister's response was most disappointing. However, in our debates in Committee, the Minister showed an interest in constructive ideas from the Opposition. I hope that this is an idea that he will steal, expand and bring back to the House, claiming ingenuously that it is his own. I look forward to that opportunity before too long.

Question put and negatived.

New clause 10

REPORTS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 3(I) OR 7(I) OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1991

'.—(1) Pursuant to sections 3(1) or 7(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 the Crown Court shall seek guidance from the Probation Service as to the minimum amount of time necessary in order to ensure that the report meets the standards set down in the National Standards for the preparation of pre-sentence reports published by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in accordance with section 3(5)(b) of that Act.

(2) The Crown Court may, with the agreement of prosecution, defence and the Probation Service rule that the


circumstances of a particular offender and a particular offence or group of offences are such that no report is required in order to fulfill the interests of justice.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We now come to a point that is a development of an issue that we discussed only a few minutes ago. The Minister referred to courts having all the information that they needed before them to take a decision. I have always believed strongly in the need to take fast decisions and in the need, wherever possible, for the same court to take the decision. If the court has listened to the circumstances, there is a better chance that it will take the right decision, because it knows the circumstances of the offence and has received reports. That is not the point at issue.
There is a difference between the magistrates courts and the higher courts. In the Crown court, it is far more likely that, if there is an adjournment, the same judge will be able to preside. He will therefore have his own notes and memory of the case. That is frequently not the case in the magistrates courts. The problem is that there now seems to be a pressure for same-day reports in the Crown court where problems can arise and where serious issues have to be gone into. We are concerned about the fastest possible service for the courts consistent with the fullest possible information for the courts. I hope that I can take it for granted that the Minister and I agree on those being the two objectives for which we have to strive.
I now come to the background to our approach in the new clause. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 requires courts to obtain pre-sentence reports in all cases serious enough for a community penalty or imprisonment, except indictment-only cases in which the Crown court deems it unnecessary to obtain a report. To facilitate that requirement, the probation service undertook pilot trials in the preparation of a faster report-writing service to the Crown court. A statement of preferred practice was drawn up between the Home Office and the probation service with the approval of the Crown court judiciary.
The statement establishes that the probation service will assess in every case how quickly it will be possible to prepare a pre-sentence report in accordance with national standards for the preparation of pre-sentence reports, and that it
will seek to write each report as expeditiously as possible".
The point of speed is there again. The statement also establishes that the time required for preparation will
vary considerably from case to case.
and that
in appropriate cases only this may be later the same day".
I encourage the idea that, wherever possible, the report is written the same day, but it must be acknowledged that that is not always possible.
In June this year, the Home Office probation inspectorate produced the first HMIP inspection of implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The report records that the use of the provision for expedited reports has been slow to date. It also records that there has been no expression of dissatisfaction with the arrangements by Crown court judges. Nevertheless, on 17 June, apparently in response to the report, the Home Office issued CPO letter 33 of 1993 in the name of the Home Secretary, requiring the probation service to ensure the provision of a same-day report in every case that the judge remands into custody.
The Minister will recognise that there is an immediate apparent contradiction. There is the recognition in the Department's own guidance that only in some cases can reports properly be prepared in the day, and the requirement that they shall always be prepared in the day in the Crown court.
It appears that the letter to the chief probation officers is a response to different pressure from that which is being expressed—that is, pressure from the judiciary to repeal that part of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which requires automatic pre-sentence reports. Judges would prefer to return to their former discretion in deciding when to invite the preparation of pre-sentence reports. The trouble is that that is a dangerous outcome. It appears that the pressure on the probation service resulted in the offer of the same-day report service which, frankly, cannot be made to work if it is to be consistent with the idea of national standards which the Minister will want to pursue as vigorously as in the past year.
There is a danger, therefore, that we shall be drawn into a conflict of requirements, which might have a disadvantageous effect on practice in the probation service and the standard of reports on which the courts have to take a decision. What is required are arrangements which will ensure that the statement of preferred practice to meet the national standards which the Home Office is pursuing can be pursued and that those arrangements are correctly in place.
That is one aspect of the new clause before us. I ask the Minister to acknowledge that it is a serious point, and I make it in the belief that it conflicts in no way with Government policy or the principles that he seeks to adopt. However, there is a danger of requirements being placed which will in practice undermine one or more of the requirements that the Minister is pursuing.
The proposal in the new clause that the probation service will be consulted about the minimum time required to prepare a report in accordance with national standards would consolidate the arrangements in the statement of preferred practice in legislation. That is necessary because of the fear that the Home Office will ignore the statement in its new instruction to prepare same-day reports in all cases. We need to protect the flexibility that is necessary to ensure that the national standards are achieved.
The need for flexibility in time arises form the great variation in the nature and complexity of the cases before the courts. Some cases cannot be dealt with quickly. I have mentioned a number of examples with which the Minister will have sympathy—cases in which there is child abuse, physical, emotional or sexual; drug or alcohol abuse; homelessness; mental illness; and many offences involving young people. In such cases, the issues involving longer time may need referrals to specialist agencies or hospitals, or liaison with social services departments may be necessary for confidential information to be read which could not be released prior to a conviction. Those serious issues would be overridden by a same-day system becoming necessary and universal.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister accepts that it would be impossible to sustain such a system 100 per cent. because of meeting demands, staff shortages, illness and annual leave, even if the problems that I have outlined are not present. Clearly, such problems are present, and it would be bad, dangerous and in contradiction of the Minister's stated principle that the courts should have the


fullest and most accurate information available to them when taking decisions if that were the case. I hope that the Minister accepts our view in support of the new clause.
The second aspect is simple and straightforward—that is, to permit judges, with the agreement of defence counsel, prosecution counsel and the probation service, to sentence without a pre-sentence report. This matter generally arises not in the magistrates court but in the Crown court. The new clause seeks to return some discretion to the judiciary in determining when it is necessary to have reports in triable either-way cases.
The step forward to the automatic preparation of reports in the 1991 Act was important, with its assumption that a community sentence might be appropriate in all those cases. It is important to retain that presumption. However, when there is no doubt about the imposition of a sentence other than a community disposal, it seems only helpful and sensible for all concerned, as well as cost-effective, to return discretion to the sentencer. If the sentencer believes that there is no need for a report, and if defence counsel, prosecution counsel and the probation service, which would prepare the report, all agree, it would seem a mere bureaucratic quibble to say that a report must nevertheless be prepared.
I hope that the Minister will agree that what we have proposed in the new clause pursues his aim, but in a way which will ensure that there is not a clash of interest in the court and that there is not preparation of a report when in the minds of everyone involved a report is not necessary.

Mr. Maclean: The new clause will make important changes to the circumstances in which pre-sentence reports are obtained. It may assist the House if I briefly summarise where we are now and why we got here.
The range of circumstances in which a pre-sentence report must be considered before sentence is passed was extended and rationalised by the 1991 Act. Parliament approved those changes on the basis that they would ensure that, in the case of more serious offences, there would always be an objective and independent report available to the court, irrespective of factors such as the timing of the plea or whether the trial had been contested. It was felt that that would be in the interests of consistent justice.
It was recognised that the requirements in the Act would give the probation service additional work, but the Government concluded that the additional resources would be more than justified by the improvement to the sentencing process brought about by a consistent supply of reports in accordance with defined national standards. It was also recognised that the requirements in the Act had the potential to inject a new element of delay into the sentencing process. For that reason, arrangements were made throughout the country for probation services, in discussion with the courts, to provide facilities for reports to be written quickly and on the same day in appropriate circumstances.
The recent report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of probation on the operation of the Act, which was published earlier this month, found that on the whole the quality of reports was good but that not enough use was being made of the facilities for fast reports that are now in place.
Bearing in mind the costs and problems of unnecessary delays—I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on this point—we have now asked the probation service to guarantee a pre-sentence report on the day of conviction in all Crown court cases where the alternative would be a custodial remand. That request was made to avoid unnecessary delays at the Crown court, which are costly and undesirable for many reasons, including their effects on the trial process as a whole and on individual defendants.

Mr. Michael: For the sake of clarity, I make it clear that I agree with the Minister up to this point. The danger of the undertaking of every case being same day causes the problem. Up to that point, there is no dispute between us. The problem is whether the requirement that all cases shall be same day, especially the list of cases that I gave, might bring about a danger of the court not having full and adequate information available. That is the crux of the problem.

Mr. Maclean: I shall come to that point. The evidence of Her Majesty's chief inspector of probation is that there is no necessary trade-off between speed and quality. Although the same-day target is stretching for the probation service, our judgment is that such a target is proper in those cases where a remand in custody would otherwise be necessary. Probation services will need to adjust their priorities as necessary to meet the target. In other cases where time is not of the same essence, the courts may well wish to look to the probation service for guidance about how long is needed for a report, but I do not see that statutory provision of the sort envisaged in the new clause needs to be made for that.

Mr. Michael: I should like to ask the Minister about the use of the word "target". Surely the difference between a target and a requirement is crucial to the debate. I agree with the Minister about establishing a target and exerting pressure to ensure that a report is produced on the same day as appearance in court. He would also be right to say that delay does not necessarily improve the quality of reports. There are cases, however, involving complex evidence where it would be extremely dangerous to set not just a target but a requirement for a same-day PSR.

Mr. Maclean: I do not want to have a discussion on semantics. Let me make it clear, however, that the target is same-day PSRs. We have requested the probation service to meet that target. We would like to require it to do that, but I am not suggesting that that requirement should be set in statute.
The chief inspector of probation believes that that target is a reasonable one and, over the next few months, I will monitor progress carefully to judge whether that is true. Probation officers will be given a chance to see whether they can meet that target. I, too, will consider carefully whether they can. I shall also listen to what the judiciary has to say about the operation of that target.
I assure the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that it is not our intention to place speed at a premium over quality. The evidence from the inspection report suggests that the two can go together. If it emerges on the day, however, that further inquiries are needed, perhaps as the result of an offender's medical condition or because more detail is necessary, it will be open to the


court to ask for further inquiries to be made. We expect the probation officer to report, on the day, to say how that assessment should be completed.
It may be helpful if I tell the House that we are reviewing the national standards that cover all the main aspects of the work of the probation services, including PSRs. It will obviously be necessary to monitor carefully how the new guidance works in practice.
I shall bear in mind what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has said when I consider the PSR provisions of the 1991 Act, but I am not persuaded that the new clause strikes the right balance. I am willing to reflect, however, on the points raised about its second subsection. I will also reflect on what practitioners, including the judiciary, think about it.
Although the provisions requiring a written PSR—without exception and across a defined range of cases—are reasoned, I do not rule out changes if we conclude that they are justified. A judgment must be made, as ever, on the balance between consistency and discretion. The new clause raises difficulties by making a decision on whether a report is needed turn on the consent of the defence or the probation officer.
One of the strengths of the PSR in comparison with the old social inquiry report is that the PSR is clearly perceived and valued by sentencers as an objective, independent report. I foresee a bit of difficulty in a provision that gives discretion with the one hand and takes it away with the other.
Given that we are monitoring the national standards and that I am happy to return to the matter in future legislation should we discover in the next few months that the PSRs are not working as hon. Members would want, I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will withdraw his new clause.

Mr. Michael: The Minister's reply has been helpful. It is important to decide whether the objective of same-day reporting should be considered as a target, a request, a strong request or a requirement. To consider that objective as a target at which to aim would be welcome, but it would be a mistake if it was insisted upon to the detriment of the quality of the report. That the Minister has undertaken to monitor the PSRs, however, goes a long way towards meeting my concerns.
Will the hon. Gentleman agree to ensure that that monitoring will be careful? Does he accept that the criteria for and parameters and method of recording that monitoring should be agreed in advance? That would ensure that everyone understood the way in which the information was interpreted.
Will the Minister consult with those involved, including, obviously, the judiciary and those in the probation service, on the criteria to be used so that we are all clear, in advance, about the judgments that will be made? If the methodology of the monitoring is understood by all concerned, I cannot but be satisfied with the Minister's undertaking.

Mr. Maclean: We would want to ensure that those whom we are monitoring understand exactly what is being monitored. In case I did not make it absolutely clear, I confirm that the requirement in table 93 is not that every

report should be prepared on the same day, but that same-day reports should be guaranteed in all cases that would otherwise involve custodial remand.

Mr. Michael: I welcome that clarification from the Minister, which is helpful. In view of that reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 12

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 57 OF NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT I99I

'.—(1) Section 57 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 shall be amended as follows—

(a) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (4)—

"(4) This section applies for the purpose of terrorist investigations, that is to say investigations into—

(a) the activities of an organisation concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism, or
(b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 applies, or
(c) any other act which appears to have been done in furtherance of or in connection with such acts of terrorism, including any act which appears to constitute an offence under sections, 2, 9, 10 or 11 or Part III of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, or
(d) without prejudice to paragraph (c) above, the resources of a proscribed organisation, or
(e) funds which may he applied or used for the commission of, or in furtherance of or in connection with, acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, or
(f) the proceeds of the commission of such acts of terrorism or of activities engaged in in furtherance of or in connection with such acts.
(b) In subsection (5) for the references to paragraphs (a) and (c) there shall be substituted references to paragraphs (d) and (f) respectively.".
(c) The following subsection shall be added—

"(6) Persons authorised under this section in respect of investigations that fall within subsection (4)(a) to (c) shall be persons who hold or have held judicial office in any part of the United Kingdom or who are—

(a) a person who has a ten year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990; or
(b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least ten years standing; or
(c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland of at least ten years standing.".

(2) In paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 all the words after "paragraph 2" shall be deleted and there shall be inserted "shall be admissible in evidence and such admissibility shall not in itself be a reasonable excuse within the meaning of
paragraph 4( 1 )".'.—[ Mr. Trimble.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Perhaps I should explain why I have adopted a slightly different position in the Chamber. That reflects not a change in political allegiance but my need for some lumbar support.
The new clause stems from a speech made by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on 27 May when he introduced his fifth annual report. In that speech, he


mentioned changes in the law that he considered to be desirable for the police to be effective in dealing with the terrorist problem that we face not just in Northern Ireland but elsewhere in the United Kingdom. He listed seven changes to the law that he considered to be desirable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) put them on record in a debate in the House a couple of weeks ago.
In Committee, I tabled two new clauses to give effect to two of the provisions mentioned by the Chief Constable. At the end of a brief debate, I expressed the hope that we would have an opportunity for a further, wider debate on the issue in the House.
I have not pursued the more radical of the two new clauses because I acknowledge that it is a radical proposal that needs to be subject to more debate and further refinement. The draft that I produced in Committee represented a stab at the matter. I have, however, retabled an amended version of the second, more modest proposal. That amended version is the result of advice that I have received from the RUC. I particularly commend the new clause, as currently drafted, because it has benefited from advice and refinement.
The new clause would amend section 57 of and schedule 5 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. It is appropriate to take the opportunity offered by the Bill to do just that. I was surprised when the Minister said in Committee that the Bill was not the appropriate vehicle for such a change. The Bill makes massive changes to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and in effect rewrites the whole of part VII, so I do not understand the Minister's argument that it is not a suitable or effective vehicle for change. The Bill makes substantial changes to anti-terrorist law as it applies not just to Northern Ireland but beyond. It is therefore appropriate that we consider this further change.
Section 57 and schedule 5 of the emergency provisions legislation empower the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to appoint "authorised investigators", who can require people to attend particular places, answer questions and produce documents. The provision offers a measure of protection, in that information covered by professional legal privilege or a duty of confidentiality arising from banking business does not have to be produced. However, other documents must be produced and other questions answered.
Failure to answer by a person being questioned under that section and schedule is an offence. Making an inaccurate or misleading answer, or destroying documents, are further offences. The latter offence carries a penalty of up to seven years imprisonment, whereas the former carries a penalty of only five years imprisonment.
8.30 pm
I have gone through the existing provision to point out that it is substantial and makes significant inroads into what is known as the right to silence. The Government put that provision on the statute book in 1991. The new clause simply extends the range of circumstances to which the existing power under the 1991 Act apply, but it does so in a curious way. The significant inroad into the right to silence applies to offences relating to financing terrorism. I am proposing an extension of that to more serious offences.
I could understand an objection to the new clause if it extended an existing inroad into the right to silence from serious to less serious offences, as people might then be

concerned about eroding a defendant's perceived right. But that is not what the new clause does; rather, it applies the section to more serious offences.
In Committee, I suggested to the Minister that, in some respects, it was an anomaly that we have a power to appoint investigators to require people to answer questions and produce documents with regard to minor terrorist offences but have no such power with regard to serious terrorist offences. I was sorry that he did not respond to that point in Committee.
I have slightly modified the drafting of the new clause and provided an additional safeguard. An existing safeguard with regard to the operation of authorised investigators is that their code of practice provides for the tape recording of interviews in the presence of solicitors. Because the provision would be operated in a wider range of circumstances, it is appropriate to offer further safeguards restricting those eligible for appointment as authorised investigators to persons who hold or have held judicial office, or to lawyers of at least 10 years standing. That would help to make the provision safe against any challenge under the European convention on human rights.
A further change, although not by way of a safeguard, is to amend paragraph 5 of schedule 5, under which answers given to an authorised investigator are not normally permissible in evidence. Cases have already arisen in which that restriction has prevented the institution of proceedings. It seems strange that the legislation impels people to answer questions but that their answers are not admissible in evidence. The whole point of requiring people to answer questions is to provide information relating to breaches in the law and that information should therefore be admissible in evidence. That is provided for in the new clause.
I hope that the Minister can give a different slant on the matter this evening because in Committee his remarks related mainly to the more radical of my proposals, which I am not pursuing at present. He referred to maintaining the character and reputation of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland and the support of sensible and decent people. He also spoke about sustaining the judicial function and ensuring that a perception would not diminish it.
Does the Minister consider that section 57 and schedule 5 to the 1991 Act undermine the judicial function of the legal system in Northern Ireland? Do they undermine the character and reputation of the criminal justice system in the hearts and minds of ordinary, sensible, decent people? I do not think that they do and I do not see how the Minister could argue that the 1991 Act does that. The new clause simply extends the existing provision to deal with more serious offences. It removes an anomaly, which is an appropriate thing to do.
Last week, in the debate on the renewal of direct rule, and a couple of weeks earlier in the debate on the renewal of the emergency provisions and prevention of terrorism legislation, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland quoted the same passage from the Chief Constable's speech of 27 May when he presented his annual report. In that passage, the Chief Constable purported to refute the widespread belief that the police are in some way shackled. The Secretary of State quoted that denial with evident satisfaction and went on to assert that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is given every resource that it needs and has asked for in order to fight terrorism.
In the light of what the Chief Constable said then and what has happened since, the remarks of the Secretary of State are not accurate, because the Chief Constable asked for specific changes to be made and went to the extent of saying to the public, a month ago, that he had been denied those changes. He asked for changes that have not yet been granted. That is remarkable, as he said that the matter had been delayed and blocked within the Northern Ireland Office.
In Committee, the Minister linked that delay to the expected report of the royal commission, which we understand is coming soon. Although the royal commission report may be relevant to the more radical of my proposals, it is no reason for dealing with a provision that takes existing legislation, to which the Minister cannot reasonably object, and applies it to other circumstances. On that basis, I hope that the Minister can give me a better, more reasoned reply than he gave me last week.

Mr. Maclean: I listened with great care to the remarks of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and I am grateful for the customary courteous manner in which he presented his arguement, although I must confess that I was slightly alarmed to see him on the Bolsover Bench.
The hon. Gentleman has again taken the opportunity of our consideration of the Bill to propose changes. Although, as he says, he has not proposed his more radical solutions, they are still of great significance to the criminal law in Northern Ireland.
The new clause, like those that the hon. Gentleman proposed in Committee, would have a significant impact on the right to silence of a person suspected of committing a terrorist offence in Northern Ireland. The new clause achieves that effect by extending to all terrorist crime the authorised investigator powers currently available under section 57 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 in respect of investigations into terrorist finances, and by allowing a statement made by a person in response to a requirement imposed by an authorised investigator to be then used in evidence against that person in any prosecution, which I understand is not the case at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether or not the measure would undermine the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. That requires more consideration than we have been able to give it in the weeks since the Bill left Committee or in the few days that we have had to consider the hon. Gentleman's proposals. As I said then, and as I say now to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends who are present tonight, the Government and the RUC keep the effectiveness of the law in combating terrorism continually under review, and the suggestions made reasonably by the Chief Constable are currently receiving not just full but urgent consideration.
I checked the Hansard report of our debate in Committee and the hon. Gentleman asked me whether those suggestions were receiving urgent consideration. Yes, they are. The Government are determined to ensure that all reasonable measures are in place to assist the prevention and investigation of terrorist crime, but we have to balance that against the need to maintain the character and the reputation of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland and the support of the people of

Northern Ireland for it. Therefore, the Government do not believe that it would be sensible to use the Bill to legislate on such issues.
I can assure the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is giving the proposals the closest attention, but, given the nature of the threat posed by terrorist crime, I honestly believe that changes in the criminal law in Northern Ireland can be made only with great care and after full consideration. Even if I thought that the hon. Gentleman's proposals were excellent, I would not wish to take them on board after just a few days' consideration of them here, but would wait until it was possible to give them full and proper consideration with all the appropriate authorities in Northern Ireland.
It is true that the royal commission is about to report. I must say to the hon. Gentleman in all honesty that that is not an excuse that I plucked from mid-air for not wishing to take further action on the right to silence. I understand that the royal commission will be making recommendations on that matter. Again, the Government will wish to consider them seriously, and if we wish to make any changes to the right to silence, either here or as it further affects the law in Northern Ireland, it is best to wait for what the royal commission has to say.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive contribution that he made to the debate tonight, as he did in Committee. I assure him that the Government are prepared to make changes to the legislation against terrorism when such changes are shown to be necessary and desirable. Part IV, which strengthens the law against terrorist finances, is clear evidence of that. However, hasty action in the area covered by the new clause would not be wise.
The principles behind the clause must be carefully examined and, as I hope I have managed to explain, the Bill is not a suitable vehicle for that, especially when we are expecting the royal commission's report and when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is having full and urgent discussions on the Chief Constable's proposals. In view of those assurances, I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he would care to withdraw his motion.

Mr. Trimble: The Minister has in effect repeated what he said in Committee, only with more emphasis. He has used basically the same argument and the same phrases.
Let me briefly comment on just a few points. The changes are necessary. I am sorry if I did not put the argument to show their necessity. I refer hon. Members who happen to read or listen to my speech tonight to the Hansard report of the Committee proceedings, where I gave some examples of why they are necessary. They are made necessary by the existing situation and the way in which terrorists are trained to withstand interrogation and normal questioning. Their necessity is shown by the fact that the Chief Constable of the RUC decided to go public on this issue, and that is quite unusual.
I should correct one point: the proposed measures are not simply changes to the law in Northern Ireland. Although section 57 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act has to start in Northern Ireland by an appointment by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, it extends throughout the United Kingdom. It is


one of the few provisions of which we approve in that respect because there is a need for a common legal basis to operate thoughout the United Kingdom and it is one of the grounds on which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I support the recent comments by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) when he called for the need to tackle the present problem on a United Kingdom basis. We were glad that such an integrationist argument was put by the architect of direct rule. The provisions extend throughout the United Kingdom, and it is necessary that they be reinforced.
The Minister said that it has been only a week since the Bill concluded its Committee stage and that we had had only a few days to consider the proposals in Committee. However, a month ago, the Chief Constable went public and the matter had been on the go before that; it is not as if the Minister had been given only nine or 10 days to consider the new clause.
The proposals have been under consideration for months and the impression that we have received in Northern Ireland is that the Northern Ireland Office has been sitting on them. Perhaps the Minister has become aware of them only in the past fortnight, but that is a reflection on the way in which the Government have been operating and the lack of co-ordination between the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office, and that reinforces the arguments made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
Having said that, the Minister said in Committee that the proposals were a bit premature, to which I added the gloss they might be a little premature, but not much. Perhaps after consideration of the royal commission's report and after consultation with other bodies, it will be necessary for the Minister to put forward proposals that may not be exactly the same but are on similar lines. He will have to do that soon. I will ease the U-turn he will then make by not compelling him to vote tonight against something that he will have to support before long. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF GROUP A OFFENCES

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 3, line 6, leave out from '(1)' to 'For', in line 8.

No. 14, in page 3, line 12, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

'(2) For the purpose of determining whether or not a particular event is a relevant event in relation to a Group A offence, any question as to where it occurred is to be disregarded.

(3) A person may be guilty of a Group A offence if any of the events which are relevant events in relation to the offence occurred in England and Wales.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 19

OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH LAUNDERING MONEY FROM DRUG TRAFFICKING: SCOTLAND

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 29, line 26, leave out from 'not' to end of line 30 and insert
'make it an offence for a professional legal adviser to fail to disclose any information or other matter which has come to him in privileged circumstances.'.

No. 29, in page 30, line 17, at end insert—

'(8A) For the purposes of this section, any information or other matter comes to a professional legal adviser in privileged circumstances if it is communicated, or given, to him—

(a) by, or by a representative of, a client of his in connection with the giving by the adviser of legal advice to the client;
(b) by, or by a representative of, a person seeking legal advice from the adviser; or
(c) by any person—

(i) in contemplation of, or in connection with, legal proceedings; and
(ii) for the purpose of those proceedings.

(8B) No information or other matter shall be treated as coming to a professional legal adviser in privileged circumstances if it is communicated or given with a view to furthering any criminal purpose.'.

No. 30, in page 31, line 9, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

'(4) Nothing in subsections (1) to (3) above makes it an offence for a professional legal adviser to disclose any information or other matter—

(a) to, or to a representative of, a client of his in connection with the giving by the adviser of legal advice to the client; or
(b) to any person—

(i) in contemplation of, or in connection with, legal proceedings; and
(ii) for the purpose of those proceedings.

(4A) Subsection (4) above does not apply in relation to any information or other matter which is disclosed with a view to furthering any criminal purpose.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 22

ENFORCEMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND ORDERS: DRUG TRAFFICKING

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 34, line 33, after 'orders),' insert

'in subsection (1), for "19" there shall be substituted "18" and'.—(Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 25

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ETC. RECEIVED IN PRIVILEGED CIRCUMSTANCES

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 37, line 7, at end insert—

'(2) The same subsections as are inserted in section 31 of the Act of 1986 by subsection (I) shall be inserted in section 42 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 (corresponding Scottish provision).'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 33

ENFORCEMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND ORDERS: PROCEEDS OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 45, line 15 after 'orders),' insert

'in subsection (1), for "89" there shall be substituted "88" and'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 49

INVESTIGATION OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 64, line 46, after 'conceals' insert 'or destroys'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 64

FIXING OF FINES

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 73, line 11, at end insert—
'(1 A) In fixing the amount of any fine, a magistrates' court shall consider the weekly amount which it appears to the court the offender can reasonably afford to pay as a fine, and the amount of any fine imposed by a magistrates' court shall be the product of this amount and the number of weeks' payment which in the opinion of the court is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 2, in page 73, line 12, after 'court', insert 'other than a magistrates' court'.

No. 3, in page 73, line 15, after 'court', insert 'other than a magistrates' court'.

No. 9, in page 73, leave out line 46.

No. 10, in page 74, line I, leave out 'and that Schedule'.

No. 4, in clause 65, page 74, leave out lines 30 to 33 and insert—
'"29.—(1) Nothing in this Part shall prevent a court from passing a more severe sentence on an offender by reason of his loss of mitigation due to previous convictions or to any failure of his to respond to previous sentences, or by reason of any aggravating factors of the offence disclosed by previous offences, provided that the sentence (other than a sentence passed under section 1(2)(b) or section 2(2)(b) above) is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence or, where applicable, to the seriousness of the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it.".'.

No. 5, in schedule 3, page 87, leave out from beginning of line 23 to end of line 42 on page 89.

Mr. Michael: The way in which we dealt with the previous group of Government amendments demonstrates the co-operative way in which we have approached the Bill. However, the number of Government amendments shows that the legislation has often changed rapidly and dramatically as it has progressed. That led me to table amendment No. 1 and those grouped with it.
They relate to a part of the Bill that did not exist on Second Reading, and which was therefore not considered in Committee or on Report in another place. The changes heralded by this group of amendments concern fines and the ways in which previous offences are dealt with.
We take some pride in having provoked the Government into making one of numerous U-turns seen in recent months. This one is welcome, because there is a need to address the problem of unit fines and section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends frequently raised that issue on the Floor of the House and in correspondence, so the hon. Gentleman cannot claim all the credit. It is a perfectly common-sense move, and as ours are a common-sense Government, they normally adopt such improvements.

Mr. Michael: I am delighted to share a piece of common sense with the hon. Lady. Previous Ministers were reluctant to exhibit that common sense, but I clear the present Minister of blame for that, as I have done at every stage. We can claim more credit, because there would have been no action had it not been for my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), who introduced a ten-minute Bill, which

could have passed through the House—in the way that the Bail (Amendment) Bill did, with our support—had the Government been more forthcoming. We can claim some credit for being proactive in seeking amendments to parts of the legislation that were causing difficulty in the courts.
Grouped with amendment No. I are amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 5, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), on which he will comment.
Unit fines have been dogged with problems. When they were implemented last October, we warned that, if the Government did not take care, problems would arise. The over-excitable way in which the former Home Secretary performed his U-turn gave rise to the danger that not only the problems created by the Government's implementation of the unit fines system but principles that have not been contested by anyone might be removed. In other words, the baby might be thrown out with the bath water.
Had some means of dealing with the unit fines system and section 29 of the 1991 Act formed part of the original Bill, we would have had an opportunity to move amendments and to improve the legislation as it progressed through the House. In Committee, we moved with commendable speed to test the Government's principles.
The amendments seek to guide magistrates to impose fines that relate to the means of the offender and to be more precise than the formulation currently in the Bill. Magistrates will be required to observe a two-stage process—to assess the weekly amount that the offender can reasonably afford to pay, and to impose a fine reflecting the number of weeks of payment that the court considers to be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.
For the same offence, a well-off offender would receive a higher fine than a poor offender, in line with their different weekly incomes and an amount that each could reasonably afford to pay as a fine.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: indicated assent.

Mr. Michael: I believe that principle is agreed in all parts of the House—I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees—and by those who were dissatisfied with the system that was implemented by the Government and those who supported them.
The basic argument for such an approach is that, if operated properly, it would ensure that the fines imposed a more equal degree of punishment on offenders having different income levels. A fine of £150 may be derisory to someone who is wealthy, but it could be crippling for someone on income support or who is caught in the poverty trap just above income support level. The degree of punishment felt by the two offenders is very different.
That was the widely supported principle on which the House agreed in the past, but the statutory unit fine system operated in a way that led courts to impose unreasonably high fines on offenders having modest, middle incomes. The amendments will produce the benefits of means-related fines without the unintended ill effects that resulted from the statutory unit fine system. The House can see how generous I am, in assuming that incompetence rather than intention led to that system being implemented in the way that it was.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Much of the problem was due to offenders flatly refusing to fill in the forms. That


being so, the courts took an adverse view of their income. It was due to pig-headedness on the part of some defendants.

Mr. Michael: I entirely agree. In the famous crisp packet case in Gwent, aggravating factors were considered by the court. The newspapers continually refer to the fine in that case being reduced on appeal, but it was not. It was reduced automatically when the defendant filled in the forms. The defendant had the grace to admit that that was the case, even though some newspapers did not.
I am rather worried by this degree of agreement, but I hope that the Minister will join this party and will agree that we should pursue that principle. Things went wrong for a variety of reasons, but we must make sure that the changes that the Minister sought in Committee do not bring about another cause of difficulties and damage the Minister's reputation—in the way that implementing the unit fine system irretrievably damaged the former Minister of State, Home Office, who is now Secretary of State for Education.
In this atmosphere of agreement, I return to what we are trying to achieve in the amendment. It is particularly important that we should not go back to the system that existed before 1991. Unrealistically high fines should not be imposed on offenders with modest or reasonable means, and certainly should not be imposed on those of low means.
Before the 1991 Act, a quarter of the people who were sentenced to imprisonment each year in England and Wales were imprisoned for non-payment of fines. In 1991, a total of 18,973 people were imprisoned for fine default. The fines of the imprisoned defaulters were originally imposed for a wide range of offences. The largest categories were motoring offences, with 5,180 offenders, and theft and fraud, with 3,631. Some 26 per cent. of all sentenced prisoners entering prison in 1991 and 46 per cent. of those given sentences of six months or less where imprisoned for fine default.
9 pm
Those figures are not irrelevant. They are highly relevant, and not only to the behaviour of the courts in the new legislation. Has the Minister made any allowance in the acceleration and increase of the prison building programme for the increase of people imprisoned for default which may arise as a result of the change in the Bill? Most sentences fit fine defaulters short—defaulters represented just 1·2 per cent. of the average daily population of sentenced prisoners and 11·2 per cent. of those serving six months or less.
However, even a small proportion of fine defaulters can cause serious problems for a hard-pressed prison system, especially as the strain is felt most in the local prisons where overcrowding is greatest. The Minister must pay particular attention to the fact that the work caused by almost 19,000 annual receptions—the processing of each offender and the reception, discharge, paperwork and so on—is substantial, regardless of the prisoner's length of stay.
In Committee, the Minister said on 17 June 1993:
In the past, the courts have had a duty to reflect in the fine the offender's means, but only since the 1991 Act have they had a duty to inquire into the financial circumstances of the offender. That duty remains, so the courts should be armed with much better financial information about the offender's means and he better able to set an appropriate sentence."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B. 17 June 1993; c. 259.]

However, the change is more apparent than real. In practice, before the 1991 Act, courts always asked offenders how much their income was before fining them. The consequence was an increase in the number of people being imprisoned for default despite that practice being observed.
The Opposition amendments, therefore, are directed to helping the Minister. They will ensure that, after the unit fine system is abolished, the principle of means-related fines will continue to govern courts' decisions. That will ensure that financial penalties bear evenly on the wealthy and less well-off, avoid the imposition of unrealistic fines on the poor, and prevent a sharp rise in the number of offenders unnecessarily imprisoned for fine default.
I turn to the amendments that deal with the way in which the Government have approached section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Clause 65 repeals section 29 of that Act and replaces it with a formulation allowing courts to take into account any previous convictions of the offender or any failure of his to respond to previous sentences when considering the seriousness of an offence for sentencing purposes. Our amendment seeks to make sure that this is done in a sensible way and says:
Nothing in this Part shall prevent a court from passing a more severe sentence on an offender by reason of his loss of mitigation due to previous convictions or to any failure of his to respond to previous sentences, or by reason of any aggravating factors of the offence disclosed by previous offences, provided that the sentence (other than a sentence passed under section 1(2)(b) or section 2(2)(b) above) is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence or, where applicable, to the seriousness of the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it.
There are two elements there. One is the question of mitigation, which the Minister will note was discussed across the parties. The Minister will note that Conservative Back-Benchers asked how loss of mitigation would be brought into the system. There was agreement across the Committee on whether the approach to the loss of mitigation was the right one.
Lip service was paid to the second element, which is that the offence should not be treated as more serious than it really was. Obviously, if there is a record, it must be taken into account and the sentence needs to be set accordingly. Loss of mitigation will occur accordingly. But the offence should not be treated as if the theoretical theft of a Mars bar became a serious offence akin to assault, burglary or other serious offences. No matter how often the offence is repeated, it remains only as serious as it is.
It is that which we seek to maintain in the formulation that we put forward. We first make it clear that the courts may pass more severe sentences on offenders with previous convictions, but we also make it clear that that is subject to the limitation that the courts must not increase sentences to levels out of all proportion to the seriousness of the current offence. Therefore, in effect, courts will be able to increase sentences because of previous convictions or reduce them because of the offender's previous clean record, but it must be within the band of possible sentences broadly in proportion to the seriousness of the offence before the court.
That observes principles that already exist. The guidance for the court is already there through Court of Appeal decisions and sentencing practices that have been established over a period of years. The danger is that, if we do not write into the law a limiting principle of proportionality, we could return, not to the position


before the 1991 Act, which is what the Minister intends, but to a more punitive sentencing framework, under which some offenders could be given sentences out of all proportion to what they deserve as a result of their offence.
It is necessary to look at examples that might develop and at the position before the 1991 Act. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly emphasised that an offender should not be sentenced for the offences that he has committed in the past and for which he has already been punished. That principle is already within the law, and was established by R. v. Queen in 1980. The offender faced a punishment commensurate with the seriousness of the new offence. To top up that punishment because of past wrongdoing for which the offender has already paid the penalty, would be to punish him twice for the same offence.
That did not mean that the courts were required to treat a repeat offender in the same way as an offender with no or few previous convictions. The latter could be given a more lenient sentence because of the mitigation of having a clean record.
I remind the Minister again of the fact that that principle was referred to in Committee by two of his hon. Friends. Therefore, it is a matter on which there is agreement among those who have experience of dealing with these issues in the courts. It could mean that a repeat burglar would eventually be sentenced more severely than a rapist. Surely that would not be right. It would offend against common sense. An offence does not become more serious than another simply because it has been repeated.
I hope that the Minister will see that there is common sense and balance in what we are saying, and that he will recognise that, as a result of recent decisions by the House of Lords, what is said as the Bill passes through this place is important. This part of the Bill only emerged in Committee, and has had proper consideration only in Committee and here on Report. Therefore, it is particularly important to ensure that the right principles are enshrined in the statute.
Will the Minister look with care at the two elements within the amendments that we have tabled? It is important to ensure that offences do not lead to custodial sentences where they would not otherwise have done so. I point the Minister to a reference in a 1988 Home Office research study of Crown court sentencing. It found that, in cases of theft valued at under £200, 39 per cent. of offenders received immediate prison sentences. In such cases, imprisonment is, in practice, often a response to persistent minor offending in the past, and cannot be justified by the gravity of the offence for which the court is purporting to sentence.
The 1990 White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" said:
Injustice is more likely if courts do not focus on the seriousness of the offence before them when they sentence.
I am again playing the Government's own music back to them, and asking that the point be borne in mind.
I am sure that the Minister accepts that, where a punishment must be severe, because of the nature of the offence and because of its repetition, the courts must be able to act swiftly. It is equally important, however, to ensure that the system does not rack up offences, so that a severe punishment is not passed where the offences are not serious enough to justify it.
The departure from the principle of proportionality would mean imprisoning small-time offenders whose offences did not deserve it, passing disproportionately long prison sentences on those whose offences merited shorter sentences and using the most intensive community services for those who committed the most minor offences, for which lower penalties would suffice.
The result would be a general increase in the severity of sentencing to levels more punitive than before the 1991 Act. That would do nothing to reduce crime but a great deal to create injustice in sentencing. The amendments aim to persuade the Government that, in rightly abolishing the unit fine system and the constraints on courts that prevented them from taking into account previous offences, we must ensure that we avoid nonsensical judgments in the future.
I am sure that that will be the Minister's aspiration. I hope very much that he will take our constructive amendments on board in seeking to achieve those ends.

Mr. Maclennan: Three amendments appear in my name, of which amendment No. 5 relates to schedule No. 3. On reflection, I am inclined to the view that it would have been better to strike not so much at the schedule, which depends on clause 64, as at clause 64 itself, since that really is the heart of the matter. Recognising the constraints on order, I believe that I would be wise to focus my remarks principally on amendment No. 1 and leave it to another place to address the demerits of clause 64 frontally.
The last time I commented on the then Home Secretary's decision to abolish unit fines, he gave me the advice that I should retreat to a darkened room, take a pill and reflect on whether there was anything in the Government's proposals with which I was in agreement.
A period of tranquillity has elapsed—perhaps it has even extended into the debate, in which about 10 hon. Members are participating. Having followed the advice of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), although I did not require any artificial tranquillisers, I have come to the view that there is little to be said for the Government's proposals, which the amendments seek to modify.
Throughout this sorry discussion, we have witnessed the rather dangerous element of instant government which has been responsible for some of the worst aspects of criminal law reform in recent years.
Amendment No. I, to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) spoke tonight, is an attempt—albeit a last-minute attempt—to attract some sense back into the business of fining. It does not go nearly far enough, but it will probably improve the Bill. I hope that the whole issue of fining—unit fining in particular—will be considered by their Lordships with the dispassionate objectivity which did not characterise the Government's introduction of new clause 64. That introduction was in sharp contrast with the manner in which the original proposal for unit fines was introduced by the Government in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990.
9.15 pm
There had been a long-standing debate on the issue. The principle of unit fines had been tried and tested in many jurisdictions. It had been introduced in Finland as long ago as 1921, in Sweden in 1931, and in Denmark in


1939. In five other European countries, including France and West Germany, it was introduced in the 1970s, and Spain and Switzerland are now planning to introduce unit or day fine systems.
Thus, it cannot be said that, in proposing this means of tackling a long-standing series of related problems, we were without the benefit of international experience. I have gone through the history of the introduction of unit fines and have found that at no point did I criticise the principle. Indeed, I strongly welcomed the system as it was part of my party's policy. We saw it as a means of tackling three principal problems arising out of fining as it had developed in this country, particularly in the magistrates courts.
The first problem arose from the inconsistency of fining practice as between courts. I fear that the Government's action will do little to eliminate that difficulty. We shall hear complaints—complaints at least as strong as those that have been made since the unit fine system was so ineptly introduced—about the extraordinary discrepancies between fines imposed up and down the land for the same offence. The Government will have to be held directly responsible for this, for they had a means of their own devising to prevent it.
The second major defect that the Government sought deliberately to remove was the inequity of the fining system, which resulted in unequal pain being suffered by people fined fo similar offences without proper regard for their ability to pay. That is a real fear. The Home Office's own 'research shows that, in 1990, 90 per cent. of fine defaulters were unemployed.
The third probem with which unit fines were designed to deal—and I believe that, had they been given a proper chance, they would have dealt with it—was that of fine defaulters. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth gave the figures. In 1991, about 19,000 people went to prison for defaulting. It cannot be a purpose of Home Office policy—I have no reason to believe that the Home Office has departed from its policy because the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, decided to stand on his head—that a person deemed by a court to be suitable for fining should end up in gaol at public expense. That is an extremely expensive remedy, and one with which a Government prudent with public finance ought not to be satisfied. We shall watch with great interest what happens to the figures as a result of this ill-conceived change.
The Government do not know what has happened to sentencing and how the fines have worked in practice since the introduction of the unit fines system. As recently as 21 May, I asked the Home Secretary whether he would place in the Library the information collected by his Department on the operation of the system. The answer, from a Minister of State, was:
Statistical information about fines imposed since 1 October 1992 is still being collected. It will be published in due course in the usual way."—[Official Report, 21 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 343.]
In other words, without the relevant information the Government moved to abolish what they had introduced scarcely two years earlier. It is almost inconceivably irresponsible, but it is entirely typical of the Government.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman says that it was irresponsible, but the then Lord Chief Justice pressed for it.

Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Lady cares to read the Lord Chief Justice's remarks in full, as I have, she will realise that he was dealing with a range of issues that were causing dissatisfaction on the bench in relation to the curbing of magistrates' discretion. He was certainly not advocating anything like that which the Government have incorporated in the clause that we are seeking to amend.
The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) gave the game away in Committee. In seeking to explain what was then new clause 39, and talking about the abolition of unit fines, he said:
We are concerned about the anomalous results that have been produced in several cases."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 June 1993; c. 240.]
Is it appropriate to alter the entire system of fining, which had been the result of careful consideration by the Home Office over a period of months, if not years, on the basis of several bad cases?
I suggest to the Minister that such a move was ill considered and unjustified. The outcry to which he referred stemmed from one or two well-publicised cases which were plainly nonsensical and at least one of which was quickly put right when the facts about the defendant's income were brought to light, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said. That is not sufficient cause for abandoning a carefully thought out system.
The Home Office is not usually so frivolous in its approach. Had it given the issue serious consideration, we might have been prepared to accept that the carefully wrought structure had been misconceived and that something else should properly be put in its place. In May, the then Home Secretary said that he accepted the unit fines system in principle, but only a week later he threw it out in its totality.
I suggested at the time—this clearly got under his skin—that he had on his mind thoughts other than the reform of the criminal justice system, that his head was high and that he had aspirations that some of us have noticed he rather quickly achieved, although I should hesitate to indulge in the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and suggest that he owes his current eminence as Chancellor of the Exchequer to a packet of potato crisps flung out of a car window. For the sake of 24 hours of cheap popularity, the then Home Secretary was prepared to abandon a system of fining that was much more apt to produce just fines and to ensure that the penalties were related to means than had been the case in the past.
This hour and this place, with its rather exiguous audience, is perhaps not the right time to deploy all the arguments that might be adduced about possible alternative ways in which the system might have been modified, and I doubt whether it would be in order to argue that matter because we are dealing with a particular modification of the scheme. So far as it goes, however, the amendment represents an improvement on what the Government have introduced, though it will not really do as a substitute for the Government's first thoughts on the subject.
The pilot scheme which the Government introduced in four locations had much merit. It showed a distinct decline in the number of fine defaulters in all the areas affected and showed that it was possible for the courts to operate a system with some discretion against the background of the grids that had been established.
The difficulties that were thrown up in operating the new statutory scheme, which in some significant respects departed from the pilot scheme, were not insurmountable. They were surmountable in a number of ways which, I have no doubt, will be considered in the future by penal reformers and, I hope, by another place.
The criminal law does not benefit from instant judgments of this kind. It is a piecemeal approach which has disfigured our statute book and led to a number of monstrous injustices being enshrined in the law, almost in response to the headline of the day.
I do not wholly agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that unit fines should have been abolished, if that was what he was saying—[interruption.] I understood that Labour Members were also in favour of the principle of unit fines.

Mr. Boateng: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) argued well for the principle of proportionality. I did not hear him in any other tone or to any other end.

Mr. Maclennan: He was ambiguous on the point. He seemed also to accept that unit fines were unpopular in practice. He was not quite prepared to say that he accepted the principle and felt that they could be modified. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is right to say that he spoke of proportionality later in his remarks, but earlier he appeared to accept that it was appropriate to abandon unit fines entirely.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: In Committee and on the Floor of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has always argued that the unit fine system needed to be reformed, not abolished.

Mr. Maclennan: That is a clear statement, and I am glad to have it. I had hoped that those who are anxious to ensure that fines are proportionate and who are concerned about the problem of fine defaulters landing up in prison might agree that the Govrnment have not properly tested unit fines before abandoning them. It would be a tragic outcome of this debate if the Government were able to perpetuate the myth that they have seriously tested the system of unit fines which has worked so well in many countries and avoided the monstrous nonsense of imprisoning the unemployed in particular because they default.
If it can be accepted that, for short-term political reasons, the then Home Secretary decided that it was appropriate to stand on his head and his successor felt duty bound to put something in place which required some attention to be paid to means, and if amendment No. 1 is accepted, it might do as an interim measure while the matter is considered at greater length and with greater concern for the consequences than could have been the case when the then Home Secretary decided to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I intend to address the question of unit fines and sentencing, but I should like to clarify a confusion that might have arisen from some of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who suggested that my

hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) would reply on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. In fact, he will reply in relation to later amendments dealing with Scotland.
On unit fines, the phrase that was used a moment ago about throwing out the baby with the bath water is precisely the phrase that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth used. Labour Members oppose the current system and the way in which it has been working. There is a need for change and for reform rather than, as my hon. Friend said, throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Before the 1991 Act, the wealthy were fined derisory sums and the poor were heavily fined, thereby ignoring the wealth and the poverty in each case. The result was that, too often, the poor were imprisoned for default, and the rich laughed at the courts because there was no penalty to deter them from committing further offences. For that reason, when the 1991 Bill was considered in Committee, it was broadly accepted that there was a need for change and a need to reform the way in which fines were imposed. It was necessary to be fair not only to the poor and to the rich but to those on middle incomes.
The problem which arose with the new legislation was that it imposed too strict a straitjacket upon the courts. Warwickshire magistrates have pointed out the problems with unit fines. In a letter to me, they set out clearly their concern about unit fines. It is a letter from the chief executive and justices' clerk to Warwickshire Magistrates' Courts Service and it is signed at the direction of and on behalf of the chairmen of the Atherstone-Coleshill, Mid-Warwickshire, Nuneaton, Rugby and South Warwickshire petty sessional divisions. They say:
We rely on the fine as a punishment in the majority of cases. The concerns of magistrates tend to be about the operation of the new system"—
meaning the 1991 Act—
not the underlying principle. The results being thrown up are too disparate.
Unit fines were piloted in four Courts around the Country and worked well. Those Courts restricted themselves to a maximum disposable weekly income of £25–£40. In the case mentioned above"—
they quote some examples
the higher income man would have been fined in the range of … £1,200. Magistrates would find this more acceptable.
They were suggesting a reform of the system. They said that they would like to see different criteria, and that
the maximum disposable weekly income figure should be at least halved, and preferably reduced by more than that;
and
the subordinate legislation should be altered to allow for a sliding scale of allowances to take account of the fact that the commitments of defendants tend to rise with their income.
So, essentially, the magistrates were calling for reform.
The Government appear to have decided that they are going to return to the very difficulties that existed before those reforms were undertaken. The result will be—this warning must be given—that we will get again exactly the same problems as we had before the reforms were undertaken. We will have the rich laughing again at fines, and the poor being too highly fined.
I see the same problem arising with the proposals to reform sections 29 and 1 of the 1991 Act. There is, rightly, great public concern about these provisions, because they do not fulfil the requirements of good criminal law. They do not properly protect the public, reduce reoffending, or provide a deterrent.
Labour's view is that our clause would enable the courts to put in prison those who ought to go into prison, but would also ensure that the courts did not unjustly imprison those who should not go to prison. That balance must be struck. It is struck in the Labour party's amendment, but not in the Government's clause.
The Government are proposing these changes only because of the substantial pressure that has been put upon them. Their response has been so slow that they have been rushed into providing these clauses at a late stage in the process of the Bill so that proper debate on and consideration of them has been very difficult.
As late as October last year, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), said before the Home Affairs Select Committee that he did not propose to make any changes in the 1991 Act for a year. He displayed the most appalling complacency about the criticisms that had been made of the sentencing provisions in that Act by magistrates—over 30 have resigned—by judges, and by the police. He felt that he could wait a year before doing anything. It was only under substantial pressure from this side of the House, from Government Back-Bench Members and from outside the House that the Government were finally forced to accept that changes needed to be made urgently.
The Labour party takes the view that sections 29 and 1 are a straitjacket on the courts. But we accept some of the analysis by Ministers who introduced the 1991 Bill. We accept that the situation before that Bill was causing problems and creating unfairness in sentencing. In our view, the case for change was overwhelming. That is why Labour and Conservative Members supported the ideas put forward in the 1991 Act.
The proposals now put forward by the Government will return us to a situation that everyone agreed did not work. We are going back to a situation that is similar to, or worse than, that before the 1991 Act. We should have been acknowledging that there was a problem before the 1991 Act, that we attempted to solve it in the wrong way by imposing a straitjacket, and that we now need to try another method of resolving the problem. The Minister is simply saying that they will scrap the attempt to remove the difficulties that existed before 1991 and go back to the situation that existed then and that was causing problems. It appears to me, however, that the clause being put forward by the Government is weaker than the situation that existed before 1991, gives less guidance, and could lead to far more difficulties than we had before 1991.
The problem is that previous convictions, in particular, should be part, as the Court of Appeal has said, of the matrix of sentencing. It said that in the case of Bailey. But as the Court of Appeal also said in that case, an offender should not be
sentenced primarily for the offences which he has committed in the past and for which he has already been punished.
For example, in the case of Crown v. Bailey, the Court of Appeal reduced to three months' imprisonment the sentence of a persistent offender for stealing cod fillets worth £12. Lord Justice Stocker said:
There is no doubt the appellant is a recidivist and no doubt he is a thorough pest. But as the Court of Appeal has often said, the sentence imposed must relate to the gravity of the offence in respect of which it is imposed. As the Government said, injustice is more likely if the courts do not focus on the offence which is before them when they sentence.

I quoted in Committee cases that illustrate the sort of problems that existed before 1991 to which the Minister seeks to return. In Crown v. Galloway in 1979, a shoplifter who stole three small items received consecutive sentences of 12 months, 12 months and six months, making a total of two and a half years. The sentence was disproportionate to the offences that were before the Court. In the case of Crown v. Skidmore, three offences of obtaining £20 by deception resulted in two years' imprisonment. Clearly, none of those offences would have merited a custodial sentence without previous convictions.
The Government, in seeking to deal with that issue, went too far in the 1991 Act. Now they do not seem to accept that they went too far and instead want to return to the previous situation. I must warn the Government that clause 64 will re-create injustices in sentencing like those that existed before 1991. The wording of the clause is too vague and makes no reference to the key issue of proportionality, which is what the Labour party says should be the basis of on which the context of sentencing and previous convictions is set. The risks of no guidance to courts are as bad as the risks of too much guidance.
In their provisions to amend section 29, the Government are lurching from one mistake to another. The public want the courts to impose sentences that deter and punish and the public want justice to be fair. The punishment should fit the crime; it should not exceed the crime. The clause will not achieve that key element of fairness and proportionality that the Labour party and the public want in the judicial system. If the Government are not careful, they will end up creating more problems than they solve.

Mr. Maclean: Far be it from me to begin by making the odd political point that may provoke a wide-ranging debate, to incure the wrath of the members of staff at the Patronage Secretary's Office, or even to provoke the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to intervene.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (M r. Michael) said that he did not know whether to attribute the motive of the Government to incompetence or intention. What motive would he attribute to his own party and to those spokesmen who said that the unit fine system was so good that they would have liked it to he extended to Crown court offences?
I accept that Opposition Members, including those who did not at that time have their present responsibility, have now seen the light. I accept that they have seen the light, but I am slightly mystified as to why they have suggested a new proposal in the amendment that maintains some of the old rigidities of the unit fine system which we are scrapping. It is as if, rather than acquiring the characteristics of Christianity, Paul has acquired the characteristics of Herod. However, I congratulate the Opposition on coming back with an amendment that seeks to overcome some of the problems of the unit fine scheme which we discussed in Committee.
9.45 pm
I can see what the Opposition are trying to achieve, but I am sorry to tell them that the amendment will not work. Its design of a scheme that, again, applies a fixed system, but tries to allow a bit of discretion as well, is flawed. I shall not go into detail about our reasons for deciding to abolish the unit fine scheme as it stands. We went into that


at great length and in good humour in Committee. However, for the benefit of those who were not there and who have not read the Official Report, I shall say that we believed that the scheme was over-mechanistic and over-complicated and that it interfered unnecessarily with magistrates' discretion to impose appropriate fines in individual cases. The amendment goes some way towards reducing those evils, but it fails to do so entirely because to do that it would have had to abolish the scheme altogether, as we have done.
Under the system proposed in the amendment, the courts would be obliged to decide the weekly amount that an offender could afford to pay and would then multiply that by the number of weeks that related to the seriousness of the offence. That would produce some strange results. Because there are no parameters on the weekly amount that the offender might reasonably be judged to be able to pay, the courts could find themselves imposing fines that many people would regard as totally out of line with the seriousness of the offence.
Let us consider one extreme first. A millionaire might readily be judged to be able to afford a weekly amount of £10,000 to pay a fine. For the famous trivial litter offence, he would therefore receive the maximum fine for that offence of £2,500. That would mean that the potential difference between fines, already considered too great by many under the unit fine scheme, would be even greater. If the same millionaire were arrested in a minor scuffle with someone who was unemployed and the court decided that they were equally guilty, for the same offence their fines could range beween £5 or less and £5,000.
There may be some who would not be especially unsympathetic towards a hefty fine, however unjust, being imposed on a millionaire, but I point out that the results would be equally unjust for offenders of more modest means. For a 10-week litter offence, a middle-income offender whom the courts judged to be able to pay £200 a week would be fined £2,000. For the same offence, an unemployed offender might be fined £40 or less. I cannot see how such wide discrepancies could be justified.
It is extremely difficult to combine discretion and such a rigid scheme. "Discretion" is defined by the "Oxford English Dictionary" as:
the liberty of deciding as one thinks fit".
Operating a system requires one to proceed in certain prescribed ways. I suspect that the way in which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth really expects his amendment to work would be as follows: once magistrates had decided on the amount that an offender could reasonably pay and had then determined the number of weeks of payment that would be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, if they did not like the result—it seems very likely that, as with the unit fine scheme, there would be occasions when they did not—they would go back and change one of those parameters to arrive at the penalty at which they would like to have arrived if penalties were not prescribed by the unit scheme.
I have no objection to magistrates adopting an informal unit model if they find it helpful in setting a fine—for example, in reaching a starting point from which they can use their discretion to depart to reach a just result. However, I am not prepared to accept a statutory scheme whereby magistrates are then, in effect, expected to fudge to achieve justice in all cases.
The clear advantage of our new arrangements over this scheme is that they give primacy to seriousness and then

allow financial circumstances to be taken into account within the parameters set by seriousness. The amendment does not provide for any relationship between the two elements. The same fine could be produced by a serious offence that was rated at 100 weeks in seriousness terms at a weekly sum of £10 as could be produced by a minor one that was rated at one week's seriousness at a weekly sum of £1,000.
The amendment, allowing for discretion, mixes uneasily with the remains of a rigid system. I accept that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has made an honest attempt to try to come up with some form of unit fine system. However, our new arrangements provide for discretion and the guiding principles on which it should be exercised. I hope that he will agree that ours is the better combination.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland pontificated grandly, as is his wont, on the dangers of instant government. He decided that his amendments were not the appropriate ones to which to speak and that he should speak to the Labour amendments instead. He criticised the Labour amendments and what Labour Members had said as not being appropriate, but he still decided to speak to their amendments. He showed us an example of instant decision making that does not render him a suitable spokesman to condemn any other hon. Member for coming to a right decision.
The hon. Gentleman quoted from one part of Hansard, but he did not read the proceedings of the Committee as fully as he perhaps should have done. It was remiss of him to condemn me for being ill prepared and not carrying out a promise that I had apparently made, when he was totally wrong in that assertion. If he had bothered to read Hansard properly, he would have found that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said that victims
deserve and should be entitled to special consideration and we must ensure that they get it.
In Committee, I said:
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is not a Home Office matter and does not require legislation. I can give the Committee an assurance that I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Lord Chancellor's Department and I shall add my view that I am entirely in sympathy with what he says."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 June 1993; c. 290–91.]
If the hon. Gentleman had read Hansard, he would have found that I made no promise to rush back to the House today, having undertaken to consult the Lord Chancellor in the meantime. It was wrong of him to pontificate so grandly that we are ill prepared, when he was so ill prepared that he tabled amendments which, if we had accepted them, would have made total nonsense of the Act. He decided that he did not know whether to support the Labour amendments, simply condemn the Government or dither, as is the usual wont of the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Maclennan: With the leave of the House, it would be too much to expect the Minister to reply to the arguments deployed in the debate. It was not entirely uncharacteristic of him to devote himself to an earlier debate in which there had been a passage about the view of the Lord Chancellor. In responding simply to that point, it seems that if the Lord Chancellor was consulted, the Minister had a duty to tell the House what the Government's senior Law Officer thought about the matter.
I make it clear that I did not dissent from the view of the Labour party on the merits of its amendment—I thought that it was a good try. It is one of a number of possible approaches that one might take. The Labour party, like the Liberal Democrat party, would not believe that it made sense to propose a system of unit fines and suggest that it was the last word on the matter. Apart from anything else, neither the Liberal Democrat party nor the Labour party has Government resources at its disposal to enable it to produce schemes that will necessarily stand up to the test.
The Government have engaged in instant government. On 4 May, the Home Secretary said absolutely clearly that he agreed with the principle of unit fines but the system needed to be amended. On 13 May, he abandoned the principle of unit fines. I cannot recall a more clear example of instant government. If the Minister can cite a better example, I will happily give way to him. It is of a piece with the way in which the Government have legislated to deal with headline concerns—the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 and other criminal justice legislation.
It is scarcely surprising that they do not stick and that the Government must come forward with amending legislation. No doubt they will have to do the same with the Bill, once enacted, when the prisons are filled, as, predictably, they will be, with those who have defaulted because fines of unsuitable severity in comparison with their income were imposed and could not be paid.
The Minister is relatively new to his job and he would do better to address the substance of the argument than engage in the small change of petty party political abuse, which has been the characteristic behaviour of a number of Home Office Ministers of the past three years. That is not, by any means, in the best traditions of Conservative Home Secretaries. One recalls, for instance, the late Rab Butler. The Minister might choose to follow that model rather than that of some of the more recent occupants of that high office.

Mr. Michael: The Minister has recognised that we are trying to undertake the serious job of getting the legislation right. At the beginning of his speech, he sought to make the very cheap political points that he said he did not intend to make.
The Minister should be reminded that, from an early stage, reservations were sounded about section 29 of the 1991 Act and about the fine system. The method by which the fine system was implemented brought it into disrepute, as we have come to recognise. We must ensure that the new system does not replicate past problems—problems that led to many fine defaulters ending up in prison. The Minister has not, however, paid sufficient attention to that need. He should consider it carefully, because events will show whether our fear is justified or whether the legislation has been successful in getting the courts to approach the principles that we want to see observed sensibly.
The Minister was wrong when he said that our amendment did not give appropriate weight to the seriousness of the offence, because it states that the fine and the number of payment weeks will be such
which in the opinion of the court is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it.
That is the first principle that a court must consider when it comes to punish.
The burden of penalty is different according to whether it is placed on a well-off person or on a person of average or below average means. We did not have the opportunity to consider the fine system properly when the 1991 Act went through its Second Reading and Committee stage. That system was a late and important addition to the Act, which was debated on Report and, briefly, in Committee.
Confusion and difficulty arose about unit fines because the Government decided to raise the maximum fine to £100 instead of the £20 that was set during the pilot scheme. It is clear that the system fell into disrepute. The Minister has enunciated the two principles that must be balanced. We seek to do that in the amendment.
Section 29 of the 1991 Act enables consideration to be given to previous offences. The Minister has sought to say that no warnings were given about how that system would operate in practice. The records shows, however, that section 29 was subject to much debate. The former Labour Solicitor-General, Peter Archer, now Lord Archer, said in Committee on the 1991 Act that that issue should be subject to careful thought. The then Minister, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), shook his head at that request and Peter Archer responded:
He does not want to give the matter careful thought. So it will be on the record for the future when we raise the problem.
It is on the record that we have raised that problem.Similarly, we have properly initiated amendments to section 29 to deal with the inadequacies of the unit fine system. Our amendment led to the amendment in the long title.
I warn the Minister that he needs to continue to give careful thought to the matter. If he will not accept our amendment, I shall seek leave to withdraw it, but I warn him that he must ensure that implementation is effective and does not contravene either of those important principles.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 65

POWERS OF COURTS TO DEAL WITH OFFENDERS

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 74, line 37 after
'factor.' insert—

'(3) A probation order or conditional discharge order made before 1st October 1992 (which, by virtue of section 2 or 7 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, would otherwise not be a sentence for the purposes of this section) is to be treated as a sentence for those purposes.

(4) A conviction in respect of which a probation order or conditional discharge order was made before that date (which, by virtue of section 13 of that Act, would otherwise not be a conviction for those purposes) is to be treated as a conviction for those purposes.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Madam Speaker: We now come to amendment No. 32, with which we will discuss amendments Nos. 33 to 37.

Mr. Maclennan: Not moved.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords] may he proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Question agreed to.

As amended ( in the Standing Committee) again considered.

Clause 71

BACKING OF WARRANTS: SAFEGUARDS

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 79, line 45, at end insert
'or any other offence which could lawfully be substituted for that offence.'.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 7, in page 80, leave out lines 45 and 46 and insert—
'(2) No such Order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Trimble: It is a pleasure to be able to move the amendment. I am sure that the Minister will be glad that I have not been tempted by offers of coffee and tea but have forgone that pleasure to be here.
The two amendments are in my name. Amendment No. 7 is a procedural amendment to clause 71, which inserts new sections into the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965. Those new sections refer to orders to bring the new sections into operation, and a subsection provides that those orders be laid before the House subject to negative resolution. Amendment No. 7 would simply make them subject to affirmative resolution.
However, there is a strong case for the adoption of the affirmative resolution procedure with regard to those orders. Extradition—or, to be more precise, the delivery of prisoners—to and from the Republic of Ireland has often been a matter of controversy. In dealing with matters which have proved to be controversial and which undoubtedly have the potential for future controversy, and where we are making significant changes to those procedures, the orders changing those procedures should come before the House and, because of their importance, should be subject to affirmative resolution.
The clause makes significant changes and amendment No. 6 would modify those changes. Is it open to the Minister to contemplate changes? Is there an agreement or treaty between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland requiring Her Majesty's Government to bring those provisions into operation? Does a deal lie behind those provisions? If so, the Government would have difficulty in even considering modifying those matters.
I raised the issue on Second Reading, and was assured that there was no deal. That assurance now looks threadbare, however, because since then the Government of the Republic of Ireland have introduced legislation into the Dail to deal with anomalies under their 1987 extradition legislation. That legislation was based on the European convention on the suppression of terrorism and contained anomalies based on article 1 of the European convention. It removed the defence of a political offence from certain offences, and there were anomalies in how it operated.
One of the clearest anomalies was that article I of the European convention referred to the use of automatic weapons but did not relate to the use of weapons that were not automatic. If a murder was committed with an ordinary revolver, the political defence would be available, but if an automatic pistol was used, the political defence would not be available. There are other anomalies; that is just one example.
It is good that the Irish Government are removing those anomalies, but it is remarkably suspicious that they are introducing such a provision after a measure has been introduced into the House limiting the scope and operation of the British legal system on persons who have been delivered from the Republic of Ireland.
On Second Reading I asked whether there had been a deal, why we were making a fresh concession to the Irish and whether we were getting something in return. I was told that there was no deal, but the circumstances suggest that there was a deal and that the Irish Government agreed to extend their law only if we agreed to limit ours. If there is an agreement, it has not been published, because it is likely to have been made in that secret body which represents the real government of Northern Ireland—sometimes called the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference—with its secretariat behind it.
I wish to ask the Minister whether that is the case. He may deny it, but is he sure that he has been told the truth? We are fairly sure that we are hardly ever told the truth about the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.
The clause stems from the case of Mr. Desmond Ellis, who was delivered from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom in 1990 on warrants presented by the proper authorities in Great Britain alleging offences contrary to the Explosive Substances Act 1883 and the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975.
After his delivery to the United Kingdom:
The Crown applied to the Thames Stipendary Magistrate that Mr. Ellis be committed for trial on those two charges … The magistrate declined to commit on those charges,
on perfectly understandable grounds and instead
committed Mr. Ellis to stand trial on two quite separate and distinct charges, namely, conspiracy contrary to section 1(l) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.
I quote from the subsequent judgment of Mr. Justice Swinton Thomas in the Ellis case.
Mr. Justice Thomas went on to say:
It is common ground that that committal offends the rule of speciality whereby a person who is extradited from a foreign country can be tried in this country only for crimes in respect of which he was extradited. Accordingly, the crime reinstated the original offences contained in the warrants in the present indictment".
He went on to consider the charges, although the outcome of the consideration is not relevant to this discussion.
I quoted that extract from the judgment of Mr. Justice Swinton Thomas because it contains several mistakes. It states that it was common ground that committal offends the rule of speciality which is common where persons are extradited. Where there is an extradition treaty, there is a rule of speciality, but there is no extradition treaty or arrangement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
We loosely use the term "extradition", but the procedure that operates between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland is the backing of warrants. There are no speciality, rules with regard to the backing of warrants procedure, and it was quite wrong for the judge to refer to what happened and the actions of the Thames stipendiary magistrate as breaking the rule of speciality, because the rule of speciality did not and does not apply to the backing of warrants procedure and would be foreign to the nature of that procedure.
There is a clear distinction between the backing of warrants procedure and proper extradition. The legislation is confusing the two by introducing into the backing of warrants procedure a rule of speciality that is appropriate strictly for extradition. If they were dealing strictly with extraditions, so called, the Government's proposals would be reasonable—but they are not necessary for a backing of warrants procedure, arid one must query why those proceedings are being introduced.
When the Thames stipendiary magistrate made that decision, there was immediate reaction in the Irish Republic. The Irish News of 25 April 1991 reported:
The Irish government responded to the magistrate's decision by insisting the British legal authorities challenge the ruling in a higher court.
Mr. Burke, the Irish Minister of Justice, was reported as telling the Dail on 19 February 1991 that the action of the Thames stipendiary magistrate broke a "gentleman's agreement" whereby the rule of speciality was to be operated by the British and Irish sides that were party to it.
The Irish Government insisted that the British Government do something about the Thames stipendiary magistrate's decision, and the Government did precisely that. Mr. Burke also told the Dail on 19 February:
It would be preferable if we had speciality within the United Kingdom legislation".
Now we have legislation coming forward in which the speciality rule is being introduced.
On 21 November 1991, my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Welsh) asked the Prime Minister whether, as a result of what had been said and done with regard to the Ellis case, there would he any further bargaining between the British and Irish Governments, and whether any further concessions would be made by the British Government to the Irish Government, to get them to do what they ought to do in any event. The Prime Minister replied:
we do not bargain and …we do not do deals".—[Official Report, 21 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 419.]
On 28 November, my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) asked whether any agreement had been reached at the Anglo-Irish Conference on 19 November. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) replied:
The detail of discussions in the Anglo-Irish Conference is confidential, but my right hon. Friend has indicated that the question of setting the existing agreement on speciality in statutory form is primarily a matter for the Home Secretary and would be considered if and when a suitable legislative vehicle arose."—[Official Report, 28 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 607.]
That was one week after the Prime Minister had said that there would be no deals, but now we have a deal coming through.
My simple amendment relates to persons who have been delivered from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom. It states that such persons can be proceeded with only for the offences listed in the indictment or some other offence that could lawfully be substituted for it. That is part of the normal operation of our legal system.
By not accepting that amendment, the Government will limit the range of offences for which people could quite properly be proceeded against in the event of their being delivered. British authorities applying for the delivery of a person would therefore have to make sure that they got the offence exactly right before sending the papers to the Irish Republic. That would continue to produce cases—and

there are too many of them—in which persons who appear to be guilty go free because the charge was not correctly briefed and some procedural requirement was not properly observed.
These are important matters—some of the most serious terrorist offences that could he considered. It is not right that we should limit the scope of the legal system to be effective in respect of such cases. The Government are doing that because a deal was done with the Irish—concessions were made to them. Many concessions were made to them in the past, and we have seen precious little return in terms of the number of persons delivered up to justice. We see far too many persons whom we believe to be guilty of serious offences at full liberty in the Irish Republic. Right hon. and hon. Members may remember press coverage of persons who have gone fishing when they were supposed to be delivered here to stand trial.
It is not right that the Government should make such concessions. I hope that they will look favourably on my amendment, which seeks only to preserve the normal operation of our own legal system with regard to persons delivered for trial here.

Mr. Maclean: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has said. Amendment No. 6 would serve to defeat one of the objectives of clause 71—that the United Kingdom and Irish legislation on speciality should be identical in respect of extradition between the two countries. The hon. Gentleman said that we have backing of warrants rather than an extradition system, but it is a simplified form of extradition, so let us use the word "extradition", because we all understand it.
It is only by making our law on specialty identical that we can minimise the scope for misunderstandings and any gaps in our arrangements. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's amendment is well intentioned, and I appreciate what he seeks to do, but I am afraid that it would mean that our legislation would not satisfy Irish legislative requirements for extradition. Therefore, offenders could argue in the Irish courts that the courts had no power to order their return to the United Kingdom.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister said that we all understood. Some of us are a little confused. Will he answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked? Has there been agreement between the two Governments? Has an understanding been reached? Or will we continue to exercise the farce that allegedly friendly Governments do not co-operate in handing over terrorist suspects? I ask that question because, 10 years ago this year, my young colleague, one of the outstanding lawyers of the United Kingdom, an academic lawyer, Edgar Graham, pressed for proper extradition arrangements between the two countries, and was murdered because he was getting too close to the mark.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Member for Upper Bann asked me whether there was a treaty and whether there was a deal. There is no treaty. I am not privy to what goes on in the Anglo-Irish forum. I am not privy to those discussions. All I know is that there has been a mutual understanding of long standing that the rule of speciality should apply to


extradition. There has been such an understanding between the Law Officers of the two Governments for some considerable time.

Mr. Trimble: The Minister said that there had been a mutual understanding of long standing between the Law Officers in the two jurisdictions that speciality would apply. Can he date that understanding? Since when?

Mr. Maclean: The short answer is no, I cannot. But the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will agree that it is sensible to reproduce that understanding in both our laws, and to ensure that, in our discussions with the Irish Government, our extradition laws are as evenly matched as possible, so that there can be no possible misunderstanding which a potential offender could exploit in any court to avoid extradition.
As the range of charges which could lawfully be substituted is, depending on the circumstances, considerable and not confined to offences related to that for which the return was ordered, the amendment would in practice render the concept of speciality meaningless.
A substitution of charges would be possible in certain circumstances pursuant to the new section 6A(3)(d). That enables the description of the offence to be changed if certain prescribed conditions are fulfilled, but, in the circumstances, I do not believe that we should go any further. Following my explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Upper Bann does not wish to pursue his amendment further.
I perfectly understand the reasons behind amendment No. 7, but I am afraid that I must resist it, too. The negative resolution procedure is clearly preferable, because it is possible that events could require an order to be made or amended urgently, when, for example, Parliament was in recess.
Negative resolution enables us to start the legislative process, but not to finish it during the recess. I am sure that, even under a negative resolution procedure, the hon. Gentleman would ensure that the orders were debated.
We have no wish to deprive the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends of that opportunity nor to resist proper scrutiny by hon. Members in this House or another place. However, we wish to maintain the negative resolution procedure, because of its advantages of speed and flexibility. Therefore, I hope that, in his usual courteous way, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Trimble: We have heard some remarkable comments from the Minister. He cannot bring himself to face the facts, which speak for themselves. There has been some dirty work at a crossroads before we came to this legislation. The Minister may avert his eyes from it and say that he will not inquire too deeply into its origins, but I urge him to do so. If he looks into the background of this legislation, he will find that there are some things of which the Government cannot be very proud.
I do not have any pleasure in seeing this legislation go through, but, because of the lateness of the hour, we have no desire to prolong the sitting further by dividing the House. On that ground, and that ground alone, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 77

SHORT TITLE, EXTENT ETC.

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 84, line 4, after '23,' insert

'( Appeal against order forfeiting drug trafficking cash),'.

No. 20, in page 84, line 4, after '71,' insert

'( Power to extend certain offences to Crown servants and to exempt regulators etc.),'.

No. 21, in page 84, line 5, at end insert—

'paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Schedule ( Extensions and exemptions).'.

No. 22, in page 84, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 and insert—

'(3) The following provisions of this Act extend only to Great Britain—

sections 13(9) to (11), 21(3)(e), 24(2), (3) and (7) to (10), 28 to 31, 33(1), 34, 66(1) and 72; and

paragraph 3 of Schedule ( Extensions and exemptions).

(4) The following provisions of this Act extend only to Scotland—

sections 17, 19, 20(2), 21(3)(c) and (d), 22(2), 24(12) to (15), 25(2), 32, 67, 68, 74 and 75; and

paragraph 2 of Schedule (Extensions and exemptions ).'.

No. 23, in page 84, line 15, leave out from '43' to 'extend'.

No. 24, in page 84, line 17, at end insert—

'( ) The provisions of Schedules 4 and 5 have the same extent as the provisions on which they operate.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 84, line 30, leave out from 'period' to end of line 36 and insert
'containing provisions corresponding to part I and sections 16, 18, and 28 to 31, shall be laid before each House of Parliament within a period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.'.
This is a simple amendment, and it would be a simple job. This is a funny Bill. It contains a range of provisions, some of which apply directly to Northern Ireland. I am delighted to see pass through the House primary legislation which applies to Northern Ireland, as it gives Northern Ireland Members an opportunity on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report to participate in the debate.
Although that aspect of the Bill is commendable, there is also a hangover from the bad system of legislating for Northern Ireland, because there are provisions for Orders in Council. Worse than that: we have provisions for an Order in Council under what my right and hon. Friends call the theft clause. We call it that because it was first used in a theft Bill. It is appropriate to call it a theft clause, because it steals from us even that little fragment of parliamentary procedure that the direct rule regime allows to us.
When Orders in Council are proposed and debated in the normal way, we have an opportunity to contribute in a discussion that is sometimes limited to 90 minutes, without the opportunity to amend. However, at least there is a little discussion. Clause 77(11) is what we call the theft clause. It provides that equivalent legislation to part of the Bill can be made for Northern Ireland by Order in Council, subject to negative resolution. Therefore, it deprives us of the opportunity of any debate on the issue.
I know that, with the negative resolution procedure, there is the theoretical possibility of gaining sufficient support to have a debate. That is only a theoretical possibility and for Northern Ireland Members there is no substance in it. Therefore, authorising the negative


resolution procedure is saying that Northern Ireland Members will not be allowed an opportunity to discuss legislation for Northern Ireland.
Why is it in the Bill? It already makes substantial provision for Northern Ireland and additional provisions for Northern Ireland were included in Committee. The theft clause applies to merely half a dozen clauses. It does not make sense.
The amendment would require an affirmative resolution procedure in the normal way. That would at least be an improvement on the situation, but it would still be open to all the objections that we have to the Order in Council procedure. The amendment does two further things. The clause mentions provisions that correspond to drug trafficking legislation. Amendment No. 8 deals with the definition of conspiracy.
In Committee, I asked the then Minister of State why we were not making equivalent legislation for Northern Ireland, which in all respects is the same as that of England and Wales, because the Bill changes the definition of conspiracy in the law of England and Wales and in the law of Scotland. The then Minister replied:
In the way that these matters are conducted, I transmitted his worries"—
those are my worries, which I had expressed to the Minister several days before the sitting—
to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is considering these matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that at this stage I cannot go beyond that statement."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 May 1993; c. 57.]
I had assumed that I would subsequently hear the result of the consideration from the Minister or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. A month has passed, but I have heard nothing. I repeat the question that I asked on 27 May: why are no provisions being made for changes in the law in Northern Ireland equivalent to part I?
I suspect that the answer is that the Northern Ireland Office is having great difficulty in doing anything.

Rev. Martin Smyth: My hon. Friend's concern is shared by many Northern Ireland Members. The Order in Council procedure and the tardy response of the Northern Ireland Office are exasperating. The children's order should have been published no later than today, but despite a delay of 10 years. it is still coming.

Mr. Trimble: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, which is apposite to the present situation. Children legislation for England and Wales was enacted four years ago, and the Black report was published 10 years ago. I know that, throughout his time in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has pressed the Northern Ireland Office to do something about the Black report, but more than 10 years later, and four years after the enactment of equivalent legislation for England and Wales, nothing has been done.
That ties in with my second point about amendment No. 8, which would oblige the Northern Ireland Office to lay before the House an Order in Council identical to provisions in the Bill, which consequently would not require any detailed work and preparation, within three months.
There is no reason why that cannot be done. The Bill's passage through the House has taken some time. The draftsman has had plenty of time to consider its

provisions. No great drafting is necessary to work out the equivalent Northern Ireland legislation. I am sure that it should be ready, yet it is not.
Similar problems have arisen before. Hon. Members may remember that I raised this matter on the Adjournment some time ago and cited a number of examples of where the Northern Ireland Office had not been able to get things done within a reasonable time. There had been delays of up to a year, when it had merely to copy the equivalent legislation for England and Wales.
The amendment has three purposes—to ensure, first, that we have a proper debate on Northern Ireland legislation; secondly, that we have equivalent legislation to part I on conspiracy to keep our law in step with that, in England and Wales; and, thirdly, that the Order in Council be laid within three months. Those are reasonable proposals. As the Minister has acknowledged a couple of times this evening, I have been reasonable, and I hope that he will now reciprocate.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I support the spirit of what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has said: where there is no difference between Northern Ireland law and the law in England and Wales, it makes sense to keep in step. In the case of some areas of law in which Northern Ireland had different legislation, one could understand a delay. I hope that Ministers will adopt the hon. Gentleman's practical and sensible proposals.

Mr. Maclean: To fulfil the United Kingdom's obligation to implement the terms of the European Communities directive on money laundering, it is essential that provisions corresponding to clauses 16 and 18 be enacted for Northern Ireland as quickly as possible after the Bill becomes law. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intends to bring forward an Order in Council under the negative resolution procedure to achieve that end and to enact provisions in respect of other serious crime, similar to those dealt with in clauses 28 to 31.
With regard to part I and the rest of the Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend will be considering the extent to which other provisions ought to be reflected in Northern Ireland legislation and will bring forward proposals in due course. I can do no better than communicate to my right hon. and learned Friend the hon. Gentleman's exhortation that the legislation be introduced as soon as possible.
However, I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's condition that there should be placed on other Ministers and myself a duty to lay legislation within a certain time. I ask him to accept the assurance of our good intention. We wish to take this step as soon as possible. I hope that the good spirit in which the hon. Gentleman spoke in Standing Committee and in which he has spoken in the House today will be continued by his withdrawal of the amendment.

Mr. Trimble: I must first correct a very serious mistake on the part of the Minister, who, I appreciate, is a comparative newcomer to the awful shambles created by the way in which the House of Commons deals with Northern Ireland business. We are not talking here about secondary legislation. Orders in Council made under this procedure will be primary legislation.
In addition, the Minister's case is contradictory. He said that legislation complying with the European directive must be enacted as soon as possible, yet he cannot accept a requirement that this be done within three months.
But there is another point. As the European directive requires us to keep in step, the obvious step to take is to make provision in the Bill, and thereby avoid any worry about time limits. The Bill contains provisions relating to Scotland, which has a separate statute book. There would be no difficulty in including, after clauses relating to England and Wales and to Scotland, a provision relating to Northern Ireland. All that is required is a little effort on the part of the draftsmen and a little imagination on the part of Ministers, as well as a little willingness to exercise legislative powers responsibly.
I should like to direct the Minister's attention to a very valuable report published a couple of weeks ago by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. I refer in particular to the appendix, in which the author, setting out the case in great detail, says that, in effect, the squalid procedure adopted by the Government amounts to their saying that they are not required to exercise the legislative function in respect of Northern Ireland either fairly or willingly and responsibly.
The Minister may not be fully aware of it, but the implication of what he is saying is that he will not make the effort to handle Northern Ireland business fairly, willingly or responsibly. As for what he said about part I, he is repeating what his predecessor said more than a month ago, which was that he would be writing to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who would presumably communicate with me and my right hon. and hon. Friends. I wonder when the Secretary of State will make the effort to read the communications and reply to us.
Nevertheless, as I said in relation to an earlier amendment—[Interruption.] I hear the blandishments and suggestions of Conservative Members that we press the amendment to a vote. If they can assure me that they will support us, we shall willingly give them the opportunity to do so. Will they rise and confirm that? I see, however, that it is nothing but words. I have no desire to keep the House longer than necessary, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 38, new schedule—

'SCHEDULE

EXTENSIONS AND EXEMPTIONS

The Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (c.32)

1. The following section shall be inserted in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, after section 36A—

Extension of certain offences to Crown servants and exemptions for regulators etc.

36B.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act shall apply to such persons in the public service of the Crown, or such categories of person in that service, as may be prescribed.

(2) Section 26B of this Act shall not apply to—

(a) any person designated by regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purpose of this paragraph; or

(b) in such circumstances as may be prescribed, any person who falls within such category of person as may be prescribed for the purpose of this paragraph.

(3) The Secretary of State may designate, for the purpose of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above, any person appearing to him to be performing regulatory, supervisory, investigative or registration functions.

(4) The categories of person prescribed by the Secretary of State, for the purpose of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above, shall be such categories of person connected with the performance by any designated person of regulatory, supervisory, investigative or registration functions as he considers it appropriate to prescribe.

(5) In this section—

"the Crown" includes the Crown in right of Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland; and

"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(6) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.

(7) Any such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".

The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 (c.41)

2. The same section as is inserted in the Act of 1986 by paragraph I shall be inserted in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987, after section 46, as section 46A, but with the substitution—

(a) in subsection (1), of "sections 42 to 43B of this Act" for "sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act"; and
(b) in subsection (2), of "43A" for "26B".

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.33)

3. The same section as is inserted in the Act of 1986 by paragraph I shall be inserted in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, after section 93F, as section 93G, but with—

(a) the substitution in subsection (1), of "sections 93A, 93B, 93C(2) and 93D above" for "sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act"; and
(b) the omission of subsections (2) to (4).

The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (c.4)

4. The same section as is inserted in the Act of 1986 by paragraph I shall be inserted in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, immediately after section 19, as section I9A, but with the substitution—

(a) in subsection (1), of "sections 9 to 11, 17 and 18A above" for "sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act"; and
(b) in subsection (2), of "18A" for "26B".

The Criminal Justice ( International Co-operation) Act 1990 (c.5)

5. The same section as is inserted in the Act of 1986 by paragraph I shall be inserted in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, after section 23, as section 23A, but with—

(a) the substitution in subsection (1), of "section 14(2) above" for "sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act"; and
(b) the omission of subsections (2) to (4).

The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (c.24)

6. The same section as is inserted in the Act of 1986 by paragraph I shall be inserted in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, after section 55, as section 55A, but with the substitution—

(a) in subsection (1), of "sections 53, 54(2) to (6) and 54A above" for "sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act"; and


(b) in subsection (2), of "54A" for "26B".'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 3

FINANCIAL PENALTIES

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 88, line 47, leave out from '1989)' to the end of line 48 and insert—

(a) section 18(1) above, and section 35(4)(a) of the 1973 Act, shall not apply; and
(b) section 18(3) above shall apply as if the words from "including" to the end were omitted.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 4

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 93, line 45, leave out 'section 93F' and insert 'sections 93F and 93G'.

No. 27, in page 94, line 24, after '54A' insert ', 55A'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — Shares (Disclosure of Interest)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I beg to move,
That the draft Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 27th May, be approved.
The motion stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, whom I am sure we all wish a speedy return to the House.
The regulations will, if Parliament approves them, be made under section 210A of the Companies Act 1985. They will amend part VI of the 1985 Act, which contains the law on the disclosure of interests in the shares of public companies.
The basic rule in part VI is that anyone who acquires or disposes of an interest of 3 per cent. or more in the vote-bearing share capital of a public company must disclose that fact to the company. In addition, the stock exchange rules—the so-called yellow book—require listed companies to inform the exchange of disclosures made to it under Part VI; the information is then made public.
The regulations are needed to take account of the EC Directive on the information to be published when a major holding in a listed company is acquired or disposed of—known as the major shareholdings directive. Our domestic legislation and the directive share a common purpose—greater transparency concerning concentrations of interests in companies. The directive will introduce transparency in other member states comparable to that which exists already in the United Kingdom. We supported it for that reason, and the directive has already been implemented in nine member states.
In most respects, our own legislation is stricter than the directive; the threshold for disclosure is lower—3 per cent. against 10 per cent.; the time limit for disclosure is shorter—two days against seven; our criterion for disclosure is that someone has an interest of any kind in the shares, whereas the directive requires disclosure only where there is control of voting rights; and our domestic legislation applies to all public companies whereas the directive applies only to listed companies. Since the directive is a "minimum standards" measure, not a harmonisation measure, it is open to us to keep our stricter legislation, and we intend to do so.
There are certain respects in which the directive goes further than our domestic legislation. In particular, it contains fewer exemptions from the obligation to disclose. We must bring those aspects of our law into line with the directive, and that is the purpose of the regulations. But we have taken the opportunity to make some other improvements not related to the directive. The regulations take the form of amendments to the present legislation, and in two cases, entire sections of the 1985 Act have been replaced.
The organisations most affected by the regulations are likely to be the banks and the major institutional investors. Those bodies often hold interests in the shares of individual companies in various parts of their organisations. They maintain procedures for aggregating those interests, so as to be able to disclose them under the legislation when required to do so. The removal of some current exemptions from disclosure will inevitably increase the regulatory burden on them to some extent, but we have


minimised the increase through close consultation with those affected and have been able to reduce the burden of compliance in other ways.
I shall explain the contents of the regulations in more detail. They are somewhat complicated, mainly because we have gone to some length to preserve, so far as permitted under the directive, the substance of the exemptions provided for under our present law. I hope that the House will bear with me.
First, it has been possible, consistently with the directive, to preserve—with modifications—the current exemptions for interests held by market makers and for interests held by banks and others by way of security. But whereas the current exemptions cover only British firms in those categories, the regulations extend the exemptions to their counterparts in other member states and the market-maker exemption has been extended to market makers in derivatives.
The relevant provisions are to be found in regulation 8, which substitutes a new section 209 for the present version. The new exemption for a security interest is in the new section 209, subsections (I)(c) and (2) and that for a market maker is in the new section 209, subsections (8) and (9).
Secondly, there are a number of categories of interest which are now exempt from disclosure for which the directive provides no specific exemption, but which will not normally be caught by the directive because they do not as a rule exercise voting rights. Those include interests of trustees, including unit trust trustees; custodians; a personal representative of an estate; unit holders in unit trusts; beneficiaries under a retirement benefits scheme; and the interests of a takeover bidder whose offer has not yet succeeded or failed.
All those categories remain exempt from disclosure so long as they do not exercise or control voting rights. This "voting rights proviso" is in subsections (5) to (7) of section 209. In addition, we have widened the exemptions for trustees and custodians so that they benefit all persons in the relevant categories. The existing exemptions are limited by reference to United Kingdom law or to establishment in the EC. That change will benefit international groups active in the London market without compromising the purpose of the legislation.
Thirdly, there are the categories of interest which now enjoy exemptions but for which no equivalent exemption is provided in the directive and which do normally exercise voting rights. Those include two major groups of interest—those of investment managers and unit trust managers, and a miscellaneous class of more specialised interests listed in the new section 209(10). For those categories, we cannot maintain a complete exemption, but we can minimise the burden by requiring disclosure only from the directive threshold of 10 per cent. instead of from the domestic threshold of 3 per cent., and that is what we propose.
The relevant provision is to be found in regulation 4, which replaces the present section 199(2) of the Act with a new and inevitably more complex set of provisions. I draw particular attention to the new section 199(2A)(d). This will ensure, among other things, that parent companies

can take advantage of the 10 per cent. threshold in respect of interests held through their subsidiaries, in the same way as they may do so in respect of interests held directly.
The interests to which I referred as miscellaneous will retain a complete exemption as regards unlisted companies and are most unlikely ever to reach the 10 per cent. threshold in listed companies. So, for practical purposes, they are unlikely ever to be subject to disclosure.
Unit trust managers have considered themselves to be exempt under the present legislation, although that is, I am advised, not altogether free from doubt. There is no corresponding exemption under the directive, and the regulations will, therefore, require them to disclose from the 10 per cent. threshold. That requirement will apply to interests in both listed and unlisted companies. Disclosure of interests in unlisted companies is not a directive requirement, but unit trust managers are active and important investors and there is no good reason for a complete exemption for their interests in unlisted companies.
Investment managers now enjoy exemption from disclosure, but only where their sole right is to dispose of the shares they control as managers. I understand that very few investment managers fall into that category and that the present exemption may therefore be something of a dead letter. The regulations will put investment managers in exactly the same position as unit trust managers, which, I am sure, is logical.
The main provisions of the regulations are, as I have explained, to be found in regulations 4 and 8. Regulation I provides for a 60-day delay between the making of the regulations and their entry into force. That is to allow those affected a reasonable time to adapt their internal reporting systems so as to comply with the new requirements.
Regulations 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 contain technical and consequential provisions; regulation 9 contains a complete new set of definitions for the interpretation of part VI of the Companies Act; regulation 10 revokes two statutory instruments now superseded by provisions to be inserted by the regulations into the body of the Act; and regulation 11 makes transitional provisions so that once the regulations enter into force, any interests which become disclosable because of changes in the law will have to be disclosed within two days.
I commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for taking us through the regulations in the way that he did. He mentioned the President of the Board of Trade. Opposition Members extended to the right hon. Gentleman our best wishes when he took ill. We welcome him back to our country and wish him a speedy recovery.
Ten years ago, we heard the former Minister, Alan Clark, present his first affirmative order. He was criticised at that time by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) for going too slowly, he was criticised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) for going to quickly, and he was then criticised further by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who could not understand what he was saying. Tonight, the Minister took us through the intricacies of the regulations in such a way that their


purpose and the amendments are clear and, of course, we note that he is referring to amendments of the Companies Act 1985.
I have with me a copy of the Act and of the handbook on the 1985 and 1989 legislation. It is not surprising that the Minister has set himself the task of cutting through the red tape that those tomes have engendered and we wish him well in that task. He gave himself a deadline of July, which is approaching fast, and we look forward to hearing how he is progressing with cutting that red tape. Before he fell ill, the President of the Board of Trade said at a pharmaceutical dinner that the Department had carved through 3,500 regulations, but he had to admit that they were duplicate regulations, the same as 3,500 others on the statute book, so the Government still had a long way to go.
The regulations touch on a variety of amendments, some coming from European legislation and some being tidying-up measures. Although we want to cut through red tape and get rid of the regulations on small and medium-sized companies, we want an appropriate framework of corporate governance and regulation to cover the very shareholders to whom the regulations apply and also other shareholders.
Opposition Members embrace the principle of the share-owning democracy. We want to protect the small shareholder as well as the large company, subject to the terms of the regulations. With the Companies Acts that we are amending, a climate was created which set loose an orgy of profligacy in the City—an orgy of creative accountancy and of laxness which has culminated in a series of awesome corporate failures, the likes of which we hope never to see again.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), for whom I have high regard, mentioned last week that he was one of 61,000 small shareholders who lost their money, if not their shirts, on Asil Nadir's Polly Peck. Those small shareholders were seduced—if that is the right word—to part with their money in a dubious enterprise when the true owner, Asil Nadir, who had 24 per cent. of the shares, transferred £300 million from Polly Peck International to companies such as Unipac, operating not out of Northern Cyprus but, believe it or not, out of Jersey.
It is a fact, of course, that many of the small investors would not have been covered by these regulations tonight, for many of the investments were made by fund managers and they would be exempted from declaring their interest, as I understand it, by the amendment to section 199(2)(a).
Asil Nadir used the money to purchase his own shares, which kept the share price high, so that he could borrow more money—the share price stood at 418p in August 1990—but he also used it to finance his life style and, as we know, for donations to Conservative central office.
It is not my intention to broaden the debate, but to stay within the guidelines of the regulations. As we know, the declaration of political contributions is listed with charitable gifts under paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of schedule 7 of the Companies Act 1985, which we are amending today. No political contributions ever appeared in the balance sheets of Polly Peck, however, not surprisingly they have not surfaced, so far as anyone can tell, in the financial statements of Unipac.
We are, of course, dealing with the changes that the regulations make in relation to the disclosure of interests in shares, and we have to ask ourselves where, in accordance with these regulations and this Companies

Act, we are going in relation to the share-owning democracy. The proper route to a share-owning democracy is not the route which led the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West to invest in Polly Peck and lose his money, but that of enlarging share schemes through which the work force who invest their lives in gainful employment can also invest in their companies.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Esher (M r. Taylor) in his place, as he has done sterling work in this area and is one of the hon. Members who has understood what is an appropriate route to a share-owning democracy. The hon. Gentleman has properly understood that we on this side of the House have always sought to extend protection and participation for workers in their place of work. Clearly, protection and participation would not come through this order, but it was thought that they would come through nationalisation, perceived to be the simplest route to common ownership and the fulfilment of clause 4.
The principle had its attractions for us on the Labour side. One took over an industry and once it belonged to the state the workers got both the protection and the participation that they had sought for years, but that simplistic approach has not worked in practice. As the hon. Member for Esher has pointed out, one could not possibly take over every company, even under a Companies Act as wide and munificent as the one that we are modifying tonight, so we could not, by nationalisation alone, extend worker protection and participation to every employee.
Common ownership is not a principle that we on this side of the House propose to abandon. As we discuss these regulations and the Companies Act, we accept that we already have common ownership, because the major companies are owned by the institutions referred to by the Minister earlier, who use our money—and yours, too, Madam Deputy Speaker—through pension funds and insurance. The trick for a future Labour Government will be to decide how to bring such common ownership under control. We hope and believe that it can be done without a major Act of the size of the Companies Act 1985, which we are amending tonight.
We believe that employee share-ownership schemes should be expanded. We believe that we should examine the question of allowing investors in employee share-owning schemes to elect one of their own to company boards. We believe that share option schemes should be expanded to cover employees of subsidiary as well as parent companies.
I am seeking to show, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that you will follow me in this, that there is a link between the Companies Act 1985, the regulations that we are debating tonight, and what goes on in the outside world.
These Acts that we are modifying tonight—in particular, the Companies Act—have not prevented the perpetration of huge frauds in the City of London, thereby reducing the respectability and the reputation of the City. These Acts have never been fully followed by companies in our own country, and there have never been proper investigations into known abuses, such as the failure to declare political donations. When I asked the President of the Board of Trade——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I remind him that


what is under consideration tonight is fairly narrow. The hon. Gentleman is now broadening out the debate in a way that is not acceptable.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had one eye on you in the hope that I should stray only within the narrow bounds of the regulations. Having strayed outside them, I seek to return——

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Good lad.

Mr Bell: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the instrument is a draft, and that my speech is only a draft too. Nevertheless, I respect your kind advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We hope that the regulations are a forerunner of others which will bring stricter and tighter regulation to the City of London. That is called for by City practitioners and would give stronger powers, if they are needed, to the investigation branches within the Department of Trade and Industry. Such regulations would also inaugurate a more vigorous approach to company law, which is so badly needed to enhance the reputation of the City so that it is not diminished still further.
Through the regulations, we are redefining the disclosure requirements of shareholders. However, the regulations do not cover corporate governance, nor the aspects of the shareholder's role in the enterprise. Those questions may be dealt with in future orders, and in future directives and regulations coming from the Department of Trade and Industry. The House could then fully debate the questions of corporate governance, the direction that the City should take and how we might get back a sense of respect for the City of London.
The regulations define derivatives. The Minister referred to derivatives and to market makers, which shows how the statute book is catching up with City practice. According to David Walker, deputy chairman of Lloyds bank and former chairman of the Securities and Investments Board, derivative trading has become the most significant growth area in financial services. Estimates of amounts outstanding in important exchange traded and over-the-counter contracts show growth from $1,000 million five years ago to $8,000 million at the end of 1991.
As the Minister has defined derivatives in the regulations and places the term in our Companies Act, as well as in the Financial Services Act 1986—I relieve him of giving me an immediate response to these questions and he does not need to answer them tonight—I ask him how he sees an appropriate regulation of the derivatives market. He might tell the House eventually whether he believes that such regulation should be collaborative and international, and whether it should be based on a shared understanding of problems.
I am sure that the exchanges that make up the derivatives market, which have been recognised by the SIB, will be gratified that the statute book is catching up with their practice. However, at present we have self-regulation of those markets, where the exchanges are required to have sufficient resources to provide adequately for the protection of investors and to have procedures for the monitoring of business, the enforcement of rules and the investigation of complaints.
Depositary receipts are also defined in the regulations. That is another example of the statute book catching up with the global market place, as depositary receipts are used in the United States for the purchase of non-American quoted shares. They are a legal way round the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, whereby receipts are offered in place of non-American shares bought on behalf of customers. They have added suppleness to our financial markets.
I am sure that you will be happy, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am staying within the remit of the regulations when I refer to the Banking Coordination (Second Council Directive) Regulations 1992 (d). Every time I mention them to my parliamentary colleagues, their eyes glaze, predictably and perceptibly. I note, however, that the paragraph dealing with the European institutions carrying on home-regulated investment business in the United Kingdom is now revoked, presumably because that paragraph is now subsumed in the text of the regulations. In section 202 of the Companies Act 1985 and the modifications proposed in paragraph 9 of the order, we see how the intricacies of the European Community and its laws entwine in our legislation.
I began my short speech by congratulating the Minister on the presentation of the facts and his marshalling of the arguments. I referred to the former Member, Alan Clark. Before he took his first order on the Floor of the House 10 years ago, he went to see Lord Tebbit and was told to stick to his script and avoid any jokes. Tonight, we have avoided the jokes and stuck to our scripts. I hope that we have provided an enlightened debate, which is narrow but nevertheless broad enough to allow us to make some points in the interests of the City of London. The House can do no better than that.

11 pm

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I do not wish unduly to detain the House, but I want to clear up one or two points. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said, this is a technical area in which I do not claim expertise. I doubt whether many other hon. Members who are not directly involved in it can claim to have such expertise.
The draft order derives from the EC directive passed in 1988. I want clarification that I have understood the thrust of the order, which is that the 3 per cent. rule will remain, other than for special exemptions, and that the exemptions will remain or be subject to the 10 per cent. rule. I want to know at which point the 10 per cent. rule will come into effect as opposed to the 3 per cent. rule.
As I understand the Department's release, the member states can continue to operate a threshold lower than 10 per cent., while ours is 3 per cent. It is the intention of the United Kingdom that that will continue, although the directive allows our threshold to be raised to 10 per cent. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me whether there is any forward thinking on extending that. I appreciate that he is trying to simplify the procedure for shareholdings and groups that have no specific reason to disclose because their intentions are not likely to lead to any degree of hostility to the management of the company. The House needs to be assured that we will not inadvertently create any new loopholes and that the categories embraced are only those that cannot and will not be presumed to have any hostile intent. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough referred to Asil Nadir.
We would like an assurance about pension funds. Such funds might be able to get through the net by acting as trustees and securing in some way a position in which they have hostile intent which they would not be required to disclose until such time as it became apparent. If the Minister tells me that I have wholly misunderstood the thrust of the regulations, I am happy to be rebuked. However, I would simply like some clarification and development of that point.
I am concerned that the climate relating to takeovers in the United Kingdom is fundamentally different from that in the other member states. Generally speaking, hostile takeovers in the other 11 member states are rare events, but they are normal or frequent events in the United Kingdom. In that different climate, the EC directive may be only the lowest common denominator, but it would not be especially appropriate to the United Kingdom. I simply seek an assurance that our basic rules are not being fundamentally altered. We are talking about the details of certain categories that are currently exempted. I hope that the regulations do not provide for any inadvertent modifications that could lead to any future problems with people getting through the net.
I appreciate that the intention of the regulations is constructive and non-controversial. I hope that they will help to simplify the procedure and not create any untoward problems. While it may be a positive start to the simplification process, the Government must address the matter of how we lower the threshold cost of dealing with small groups of shares. That is relevant to the regulations.
There is no doubt that many shareholders currently hold only those shares that they bought in a privatisation portfolio. They have not gone on to transact in shares, partly as a result of ignorance about how to do that and concern that the fixed charges are disproportionate to the value of the shares. Any measures that the Minister can introduce to simplify that process will help to achieve the broader share ownership that the Conservative party wants. It would also enable people to deal in shares rather than just hold on to those that were bought in discounted sales.
I hope that the Minister will he able to set my mind at rest.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: With permission, I will reply lo the debate.
I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for his support for the deregulation initiative. I assure him that my scissors for cutting red tape will be as sharp as his intellect. I am also grateful to him for the welcome that he gave to the regulations.
If I may say so, most of the hon. Gentleman's remarks dealt with the more cosmic surroundings of the regulations

than the regulations themselves. I will not, therefore, spend too much time for addressing those larger issues. I should be happy to return in due course to the question whether we should extend more regulation to the derivatives market. I do not believe, however, that it would be proper for me to consider that now.
I can give the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) the assurance that he sought. We are not seeking to change the fundamental rules of our disclosure system. We are enabled to keep the stricter regime that we have had in the United Kingdom and we intend to do so. Regulation 4 is the relevant regulation that answers the hon. Gentleman's question. It provides for different thresholds at which an interest in shares is to become notifiable, according to the type of interest that is involved.
Most types of disclosable interest will continue to he disclosable at the existing 3 per cent., as set out in section 199 of the Companies Act 1985. A person who has interest falling within paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 199(2A), as proposed, would be obliged to disclose it only when his total interest reached 10 per cent. That will cover investment managers, unit trust operators and a variety of recondite miscellaneous provisions in subsection (10). I believe that that gives the hon. Gentleman the assurance he requested.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether pension funds would become vehicles for getting around the obligation of disclosure. Pension fund trustees will not benefit from the 10 per cent. threshold, as originally proposed by the Department of Trade and Industry in its consultation document. We decided that it would be inappropriate to include provisions relating to such trustees in the regulations before the Goode committee's review of pension law and its recommendations are published. No doubt we will return to the matter at a later date.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other matters that were only distantly related to the regulations, in particular takeover activity in the United Kingdom and dealing costs for small groups of shares. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to reply to those matters now.
I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 27th May, be approved.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

Ordered,
That Mr. Paul Channon be discharged from the National Heritage Committee and Mr. Michael Fabricant be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — PETITION

VAT and Prescriptions

Mr. David Hanson: I take great pleasure in presenting a petition on behalf of Mrs. Molly Hoffman, who is a pensioner from Mynydd Isa in my constituency, and 1,000 other constituents in Clwyd.
The petition calls on the Government not to put value added tax on fuel bills and to stop the extension of prescription charges to children and pensioners. The petition ends with the prayer
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do not implement the Value Added Tax on fuel bills and do not extend charges on Prescriptions for children and Pensioners.
I support the petition and pay tribute to Mrs. Hoffman, who attended my surgery and collected the signatures.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Outdoor Education Centres

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway]

Mr. Michael Jopling: I am especially grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the future of outdoor education centres and to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools for his kindness in coming here to reply to the debate.
This debate arises from a meeting that I had on 11 June with the Association of Heads of Outdoor Educational Centres in the Lake district centre, which included a number of the centres in the north of England. I met 17 heads of outdoor education centres, 15 of whom were from centres supported by local education authorities and 12 of whom were from Cumbria, which is where my constituency is. Eight of them—almost half—were from centres in my constituency.
May I begin by saying how important those centres are to the economy of Cumbria and my constituency. The 12 local education authority supported centres in Cumbria employ 150 full-time staff—plus, I imagine, a good many part-time staff. They provide no fewer than 160,000 bed nights for young people and others who come to enjoy their facilities. Most importantly, they inject £3·25 million a year into the local economy of Cumbria.
The centres exist in areas far beyond the Lake district. There are more than 100 centres throughout the country, of which some two thirds are run by local education authorities. I am grateful for a note that I have received from the Sports Council, which says:
2–3 million young people per annum take part in a vast range of outdoor education programmes arranged by statutory, voluntary and private sector providers".
The national curriculum quite rightly now recognises the importance of adventurous activities with an inherent element of risk, such as rock climbing, white water canoeing, and expeditions on land and sea. Although the whole House will commend those activities, the recent tragic incidents in Lyme bay are not far from our minds. Outdoor education centres must be run safely. I do not wish to discuss what happened in Lyme bay. The lesson thatat safety must be paramount has been well learnt by OECs throughout the country.
A key word in the work of the centres is "success". Many young people fail in formal education as they may not be good at exams or the analytical thinking required by many school subjects. They also sometimes fail at home or among their own social circle. The OECs often provide an opportunity for those young people to succeed, develop self-esteem and grow in self-confidence. Learning involves the whole person. It is relevant to other aspects of life; it encourages personal response and responsibility.
The centres encourage good citizenship. They unlock talents that remain hidden in formal teaching. Young people experience challenging situations which invllve problem solving, group co-operation, negotiation, creative thinking and decision making. It is common for teachers and leaders to comment on the improved levels of motivation and achievement which are often taken back into the classroom or the workplace. For those and a good many other reasons, the centres provide help for all sorts of young people.
A centre in my constituency, Bendrigg lodge, provides help for disabled young people and those from disturbed and difficult backgrounds. Many of the centres play a significant part in the fight against rising youth crime. it is clear to me and to many people that the centres do a fine job in offering good education and value for money, but they are most concerned and anxious about certain aspects of the development of education policy. That is particularly true of those financed by local education authorities, although I knowe there are anxieties at many others, including those in my constituency.
Many centres are run by local education authorities in the north-east of England, Yorkshire and industrial Lancashire, but there are also a number of very distinguished privately run centres. For instance, the YMCA runs a fine centre which various Ministers have visited, at Lake Side on Lake Windermere. There is also the Outward Bound movement in Cumbria. We have an extremely distinguished centre at Brathay hall, again on Lake Windermere. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), the chairman of the organising committee at Brathay hall, in his place. My hon. Friend may have the chance to make a brief intervention when I sit down.
The problems being encountered are that the local education authority OEC provision is finding its funding eroded to the extent that there is serious risk of reduction, if not wholesale removal, of that valuable service. Although the Government have allocated more money to the national education budget, changes to the distribution network have meant that the amount of money delegated to outdoor centres has been greatly reduced.
I want to highlight the value of outdoor education and the threats to quality and safety and to suggest to the Minister some ways in which that high quality provision can be safeguarded as I believe it is worth safeguarding. I am told that 50 local education authority centres are facing imminent threat of closure or major reductions in funding. Seven centres face closure this year, and 70 centres face imminent staff reductions and in some cases are down to skeleton staffing levels. Most centres are reviewing charges to pupils, in many cases up to the full break-even level.
The amount in the overall education purse has not been reduced, and it might be expected that grant-maintained schools would buy back the services previously subsidised by local education authorities. Likewise, schools that, under the local management of schools scheme, enjoy budgets almost wholly delegated should buy in the service. In practice, head teachers, faced with increasing demands on available resources, are showing a tendency to direct any additional funding at maintaining the service provided by the school rather than support an outdoor centre.
If centres are compelled to increase fees and pupils are required to pay the full economic rate, that will be educationally and socially divisive, and will certainly discriminate against the very pupils who might benefit most from the unique personal and social education experience that only a residential centre can offer.
All centres have made significant expenditure cuts in recent years. Most are now full to capacity throughout the year, providing courses for their local community and all other groups, to maximise the use of their facilities. It is now felt that all reasonable cost-cutting has been effected without compromising safety—which must be paramount.
It is apparent that, to provide a safe and effective quality course for the full range of pupils, a base level of subsidy is still required.
Subsidies range from £50,000 for small centres to £200,000 for larger ones, and should ideally be channelled through local authorities. Ways should be investigated of allowing the Government to provide centres with a base level of subsidy. I am told that there may be two ways of doing that. First, local education authorities or local funding councils could be allowed to provide properly accredited and monitored centres with a low level of funding calculated on throughput. Secondly, local councils could be given an incentive to provide that low level of funding. Agreement would have to be reached between local and national Government on ways of giving priority support to that vital service.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give those matters further thought, and to consider whether there are ways in which those centres can continue their wonderful work. Britain has the most extensive network of outdoor and environmental centres in the world. Centres based on the British model are being established throughout Europe. It would be tragic if our own centres of excellence were threatened and subjected to wholesale closures.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to publicise those problems, and to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to do his best to help these worthwhile ventures in the time that lies ahead.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and to my hon. Friend the Minister for this opportunity briefly to support the case that my right hon. Friend clearly and ably put on behalf of outdoor centres.
I speak from a lifetime's involvement with Brathay hall in the Lake district. It was one of the earliest independent centres, founded and funded by charitable trust. It has existed for almost 50 years and is well known for its reputation in education to staff at the Department for Education.
I know well the difficulties of funding such centres. They have been well explained by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. The danger is that if funding does not continue to be available, at worst the centres will close and at best they will inevitably be driven to seeking adult trainees who can pay higher fees if they are supported by their companies. It will take the centres out of youth education, which is their fundamental purpose. That would be a great loss to the country.
I re-emphasise the importance of the type of education offered to young people by outdoor education centres. I have witnessed it over a long period of involvement in such activity at Brathay hall. The experience of success is hugely important, as is the experience of residential living. Learning through exciting activities—although not dangerous activities, because the safety net is there—enables young people to learn to be responsible and to be dependent on each other. That learning option is not always available in school; but in residential centres, doing challenging, difficult and exciting outdoor centres, it is.
Children learn leadership and responsiveness in the group. They learn many social skills of living and working together which are the very skills that we all need when we


set out in the outside world. Some of the most disadvantaged youngsters need such education most of all. It is provided at such centres.
As my right hon. Friend said, Britain has more outdoor education centres than anywhere in the world. It certainly has more centres than anywhere in Europe per head of population. That is an aspect of our education system which we certainly should not put at risk of diminution. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will encourage us to be confident of the future and consider some of the issues in the longer term.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on obtaining the debate and thank him for his comments. I recognise and pay tribute to his vigorous and persistent representations to the Government, to me and to my fellow Ministers in the Department on behalf of outdoor education centres, which are so well represented in his constituency and the surrounding area. I join my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) in paying tribute to the extremely valuable work that is done and has been done for some years by the outdoor centres in all the ways that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend described.
Outdoor education centres make a valuable contribution to the requirements of the national curriculum and, beyond it, to helping young people to see a wider world and understand more possibilities within themselves and in the context of their education. Therefore, we can all readily agree on the important role that has been played by the centres and, I sincerely hope, will continue to be played by them.
My right hon. Friend made it clear that one of his anxieties is the future viability of such centres, with particular reference to local management of schools. I understand that anxiety. It arises from the rapid move from total control of education funding by local education authorities towards local management of schools.
I emphasise that LMS is well established and has been widely welcomed throughout the education world by LEAs and schools. The process of delegation of responsibility for funding from local authorities to schools brings in its train great changes in attitudes and the extent to which priorities are set. One of the ways in which the changes take place arises because authorities can no longer absolutely determine the way in which moneys are spent. Those decisions are now increasingly being made, as my right hon. Friend recognises, at school level.
We placed a great deal of emphasis, correctly I believe, on the importance of giving school governors, heads, teachers and parents much more say in the way in which the funding available at school level should be spent. One of the effects of that is that it will be for schools to decide in which way they spend their funds. As a result, it is vital that outdoor education centres are able and prepared to market their services and their excellent contribution—so ably set out by my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks—directly to schools.
It can no longer he assumed that their excellence is known and understood by local education authorities and

that they will automatically direct their funding and pupils to the outdoor centres. In future, the centres, separately and, I hope, co-operatively, will sell to the schools, which are becoming increasingly independent in their funding and decisions, the excellence of their service and the relevance of what can be done for pupils. That will require changes of attitude, approach, policy and technique, and I suspect that we are seeing only the early stages of that.
I have heard my right hon. Friend's positive suggestions. I cannot immediately respond to them as positively as he would like, but I want to look carefully at them. They seem to revolve around a continuing element of central Government subsidy, either through local education authorities or directly to schools.
In all honesty, given the real constraints on public expenditure, central Government funding of such centres, by whatever route, could be provided only by taking money away from revenue support grant to local authorities. My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is for each local authority to determine its own budget and to decide how that budget should be allocated. As funds are increasingly delegated to schools, it is for governors and heads to decide which local authority services to support.
Where a local authority has reduced its centrally held outdoor education service or decided not to provide such support, the money may not be available to transfer. Where a local authority has decided to maintain its support, it could not be required to pay what would, in effect be a levy, to support similar services elsewhere. Therefore, there are problems associated with the approach suggested by my right hon. Friend. However, I do not want to totally rule out his suggestions at this stage. I want to see whether any of his suggestions are practical or possible.
I should like to take up the challenge laid down by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. The other concern often expressed is about the limitations placed by the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 on local authorities not trading beyond their margin of capacity where an increasing number of schools become grant maintained. I do not want to go into the details of what constitutes a margin of capacity, because that will be determined by finance officers, authority by authority.
Even where margins of capacity are reached or exceeded and the restrictions begin to apply to local education authorities' involvement, I believe that for outdoor education centres and other services hitherto provided by local education authorities, new possibilities exist, and I hope that they will explore them.
There is the possibility in the Education Bill of the Secretary of State designating a further two-year period of continuation of the service. It may be that the staff who provided the service until the margin of capacity was reached could look at management buy-outs where existing employees, perhaps those already in a business unit, would form a company to take over the service and provide it on a more flexible and widespread basis. The current providers could seek out a private sector partner and leave the aegis of the authority to give them flexibility beyond the constraints of the 1970 Act, which may bite on the increasing number of grant-maintained schools.
We are already aware of examples of that in other similar areas of service that have been provided hitherto by local education authorities. It is entirely possible, and is almost certainly the way ahead. Outdoor education


centres should be urgently investigating the different possibilities—not seeing themselves constrained, as hitherto, by being local education authority-owned or provided, but seeing themselves in a much more open and flexible context, perhaps marketing services differently and looking to a different marketplace altogether.
Outdoor education centres might, as an interim stage, set up trusts whereby income provided by the authority decreases over a specified period, requiring increasing independent income generation so that the move to full independence, under which constraints on provision are removed, is smooth. A number of local authority services have, indeed, already achieved total independence from former authorities, such as the Cambridge Education Personnel Service and Kirklees Music Service Educational Trust—the latter being a company limited by guarantee with charitable trust status that trades as the Kirklees Music School.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently met representatives of the school, who spoke with great commitment of their success in taking this very different approach and selling services in a different way.
I have received representations in addition to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends from a number of interested bodies about outdoor education centres. I am acutely aware of the problems. I hope that the matters with which I have dealt—I can give my right hon. and hon. Friends more details if they require them—provide interesting and revolutionary new ways ahead that could be explored by these excellent centres. I hope that they will take up this opportunity to explore them all, and if they do we shall give whatever help we can.
That is the positive way ahead, and the pessimism that has prevailed among the centres is unjustified. If they look at the ways in which other parallel services have been developed, they will find that they can take a much more optimistic approach to the future.
Although I well understand the reservations, hesitations and unhappiness that have been expressed by the centres, I hope that they will reconsider the possibilities for the future—that they will look not backwards to the traditional way in which services have been provided under local education authorities, but forwards at new and different ways in which they can work in the new environment that is being created by the increasing grant-maintained sector and by the changing role of local education authorities.
That is the way ahead, and I hope that with these few words I have been able to offer some idea of how we can move forward. Officials in my Department and I are always prepared to help in identifying how the centres can move forward and free themselves of the unhappiness and hesitation that they have understandably felt up until now.
I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will continue to play his part in forming a bridge between the centres, my Department and local education authorities, where they have a continuing role to play. In that regard, I hope that the debate has been a positive sign to my right hon. and hon. Friends and the centres to which they are so dedicated.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to 12 o'clock.